Committee on the Wednesday 28 June 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.08 am. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will begin our meeting. I remind Committee members to switch off their mobile phones. They interfere with Hansard and make it difficult to pick up what is being said, even when they are in silent mode. Lunch will be here at 12.30 pm, and we will have a short break at that stage. It will be a working lunch, and we will continue right through. Are there any apologies or changes? Mr M McGuinness: Conor Murphy will not be here, and John O’Dowd will be here later. Mr Kennedy: Mr McNarry will replace Mr McGimpsey. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is anyone coming in from the DUP? Mr Paisley Jnr: There are no apologies from them. Mr Kennedy: They never apologise. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Margaret Ritchie is in for Alasdair McDonnell. Ms Ritchie: John Dallat is in for Mark Durkan. Mr Ford: Apologies from Naomi Long, who is unwell; Kieran McCarthy will join us later. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We move on to the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group (UUPAG) presentation. Mr Kennedy: Chairman, there is a prior issue. Members will be aware that on the BBC’s ‘Newsline 6.30’ last night, the political correspondent Mark Devenport was able to refer to, and produce a copy of, the Hansard report of one of these meetings. I do not think that it would be productive to launch an inquiry into how, and from whom, he received it. However, it is unsatisfactory to the members of this Committee and, indeed, to Members of the Assembly who are not present at these meetings but who are undoubtedly interested in them. Given that the press have been made aware of the reports, we should consider circulating the full text of the Hansard reports to each Member of the Assembly. Clearly the press are in a more advantageous position to assess these matters than the Members of the Assembly. Mr Paisley Jnr: I agree. Mr M McGuinness: I agree with Danny. Sinn Féin was anxious from the beginning that this Committee would try to create circumstances that would see parties engage with one another in a meaningful way around the business of preparing for Government. The vast majority of our people, represented by all the parties here, would like to see that. The fact is that someone went out of this room and gave away a copy of the Hansard report, against the express wishes of the Committee. We all received a note that said: “Please note that the Committee has agreed that the attached Report should not be made available to anyone outside of the Committee”. It begs the question as to whether anybody in this room is prepared to admit that they were responsible for breaking that agreement and giving the report to the media. People are entitled to as much information as possible. I would prefer that we were in a situation where we were able to give as much information as possible about the agreements that are shaping up among us to show that real progress is being made in the important work of preparing for Government. However, if we find ourselves in the situation where these reports will be distributed, then it will undoubtedly work against the prospect of any real engagement taking place in the future. That leaves us in serious difficulty. We must be clear exactly what the ground rules are and whether or not everybody is prepared to sign up to those ground rules. Was the Democratic Unionist Party responsible for giving the Hansard report to the BBC’s political correspondent, Mark Devenport? Mr Paisley Jnr: As Danny has raised the issue, I agree that the Hansard reports should be made available, as should the minutes. There should be nothing to hide in these sessions. The DUP’s consistent position has been that these meetings should be in public. The press should be involved and the public should be allowed in. We have no difficulty with that. However, I am not here to answer questions. I note that Martin McGuinness has run away for three days from answering questions. Now that he is back, he thinks that he is here to ask questions, but the DUP is not here to be interrogated by anyone — and will not be. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): If the Committee decides that Hansard should be made available to the public, should it be the uncorrected version or the corrected version? Members have the right to correct Hansard within 24 hours. It is important that if matters go public, it should be the corrected version. 10.15 am Mr McFarland: It has to be the corrected version; we cannot have an uncorrected version out there. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): What is the view of the Committee as regards making Hansard available to all the MLAs? Is there consensus on that? Agreed? So the corrected version of Hansard will be available to all MLAs. Mr McFarland: Chairman, you were giving us a few days to get all of the Hansard reports because of the weekend business. Perhaps we could decide when they can be released as a block, giving people enough time to read them. The round of questioning should be finished today and, hopefully, that will produce some idea of the way ahead. It would seem to make some sense, notwithstanding the fact that some reports are out there already, to give members 24 hours after issue to confirm corrections. The workings of the Committee so far could then be officially released. The Committee Clerk: Can I just clarify; we will not release any of the Hansard reports from last week yet? Mr McFarland: My understanding was that they have not yet been corrected, and they cannot be corrected because different members received them at different times. We had a discussion yesterday afternoon about this. Some members who might have got them last Friday did not because their post was stuck in their pigeonholes here. We should make absolutely certain that everyone has had the opportunity and the time to make corrections. It would make sense for there to be a control over how we do this, notwithstanding the fact that somebody has dished some of them out already. After the Committee’s business today we would have a package that comes together so that people can actually follow the logic in Hansard. They could sit down this weekend — for those political anoraks among us — and work their way right through the deliberations of the Committee, providing that by Friday we agree that they should be issued, and that people have had an opportunity to correct them. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Hansard would have to be involved as regards the corrections and Committee members having the right to correct. Members have been advised that they can have 24 hours from receipt of the report to make corrections. Mr Paisley Jnr: Does that include the release of minutes as well? The Committee Clerk: Once the minutes are agreed, they are published on the website. Mr M McGuinness: I think that the Preparation for Government Committee will draw its own conclusions from the answer given by Ian Paisley Jnr to my question as to who was responsible for giving the copy of Hansard to the BBC and effectively breaking the agreement that was made at this Committee. Also, it is important to register that none of the political parties in here, bar the DUP, has run away from any questioning whatsoever. All of the political parties have provided very senior leadership figures in the form of leaders and others who are at highest level of the political parties: the Ulster Unionist Party, the Alliance Party, the SDLP and ourselves. None of the leaders at the highest level of the Democratic Unionist Party has appeared at this Committee to subject themselves to the type of questions to which other parties have been subjected. It is important that that be noted. Mr Paisley Jnr: Further to an issue that I raised on Monday: as recorded on pages 1 and 2 of the Official Report, I said that there was a serious unwarranted slander issued against me by Martin McGuinness, that that slander was malicious, that there was no evidence for that slander, and that it should be withdrawn. I understand that there will be some consideration given to that, and I want to know if that slander will now be withdrawn. Mr M McGuinness: I deny absolutely that there were any malicious remarks made by me in the course of any of the meetings. All of my contributions have been, I think, constructive and very honest. Any suggestion that my remarks were malicious is absolute nonsense. Mr Paisley Jnr: If a thing is not malicious, then there must be evidence to back it up. Once again, I cite what was said; that in the last two weeks there had been a concerted and deliberate effort made by certain people, including me, to kill Martin McGuinness. That is what was actually said. If it is not malicious, there must therefore be evidence. I would like that evidence produced. In the past two weeks, how did I try to kill Martin McGuinness? Mr M McGuinness: In a number of recent interviews I have made my position on the Democratic Unionist Party absolutely clear. Vile, despicable and dishonest lies were levelled against me by a number of people. Some of those people are associated with the old RUC; some may be current members of the PSNI, members of the Democratic Unionist Party and other British intelligence operatives. They claim not to be — but in my opinion probably are — working for elements in the British intelligence service hostile not only to Sinn Féin’s participation in this process, but to the entire peace process. I will not be subjected to interrogation by Ian Paisley Jnr. The allegation that my comments were malicious is absolute nonsense, and I refute it. Mr Paisley Jnr: I reiterate the point that if a comment is not malicious, there is therefore evidence to back it up. If you make an allegation, there is therefore evidence. What I am asking for — and there has been a failure to produce it so far — is evidence. In the past two weeks, how did I make a concerted effort to have a person killed? That is what was said. Where is the evidence to show that I made a concerted effort to have someone killed? If there is no evidence for that, just the allegation, then the allegation is malicious of its own nature. If Martin “Malicious” McGuinness cannot produce the evidence, then it is a malicious comment and he should withdraw it. Otherwise, he should go outside and repeat it. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There has been much toing and froing during this discussion, and, obviously, there has been no change in positions. We will now proceed to the Ulster Unionist Party’s presentation. Mr Paisley Jnr: I simply want it confirmed that no evidence has been produced for what has been said. Mr M McGuinness: I do not have anything further to add. The quicker we get on with the attempt to conduct real business, the better. Mr Paisley Jnr: I simply want it noted that no evidence has been produced. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Hansard is taking a note of all the meetings. Mr McFarland: The past weeks have been the first time that all the main Northern Ireland parties have sat around a table to discuss issues that affect the future of the people whom we represent. During 1997-98, the Ulster Unionist Party went through the talks process without meeting with Sinn Féin. Looking at what has happened in the intervening period, that may seem silly, but it was what was most comfortable at the time and thus the way that it was done. In the most recent talks process, between 2004 and the setting up of this Committee, parties have had meetings with respective Governments and relied on them to transmit views and demands to others. As we discovered in the past, this is a dangerous system, because what a party tells the Government is not necessarily what is being passed on, and confusions, deliberate or otherwise, can arise. My colleagues and I have been heartened by the genuine, although not necessarily warm, engagement over the past few meetings. Speaking to each other across a table allows all of us to identify and clarify issues important to others and to make judgement on their bona fides through attitude and body language. Aside from scoping the issues, this engagement will slowly build confidence and trust. Perhaps we need to examine whether there are ways in which some of the easier issues can be dealt with. It would surely increase confidence throughout the community if the parties around this table could produce solutions, as well as identifying problems. There is no doubt that whatever the failures in implementing the Belfast Agreement, Northern Ireland is a better, safer and more prosperous society than it would have been had the hard decisions not been taken. The Prime Minister has reiterated on many occasions that the agreement is the only game in town, and it is clear that the November 2004 comprehensive agreement is the Belfast Agreement with modifications to hide the DUP’s embarrassing U-turn. It has adopted Ulster Unionist policy, and thus unionism is broadly united on the way forward. Similarly, if Sinn Féin manages to clear the outstanding issues outlined in the past few days, it will be a de facto constitutional nationalist party, uniting nationalism on a common policy. Perhaps the future is brighter than we thought. The UUP believes that four main areas need to be sorted out. Our submission begins with the first — the major issues of policing and criminality. As background to that, I will recap briefly on where the last agreement between parties left us. That was the agreement in 2004 between Sinn Féin, the Governments and the Democratic Unionist Party. As you are well aware, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionist Party were not directly involved in that and have issues with it. I want to reiterate what was said at the time: Sinn Féin’s statement on policing, in Annex F of the comprehensive agreement, is interesting: “As a result of our discussions we now have a commitment from the British Government and the DUP to the transfer of powers on policing and justice to the Assembly as soon as possible, a DUP commitment to a speedy time framed discussion on the departmental model and the powers to be transferred with a view to agreement by the time the Executive is established”. That is quite encouraging. At that stage, there was some agreement between the Governments, Sinn Féin and the DUP on how policing should be taken forward. However, a stumbling block remains — one that the UUP and the Democratic Unionist Party have already covered — and that is Sinn Féin’s inability to deal with policing. A party that is not committed to the rule of law cannot be in government. The UUP sees policing as a major issue, and tied in with that is the issue of criminality. The Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) reported that there was ongoing criminality among senior republicans. The other day, I noticed an Organised Crime Task Force (OCTF) report indicating that the level of that criminality has dropped somewhat. That could be connected with the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) and the raid by police on both sides of the border on Mr Murphy’s farm in south Armagh. As far as we can gather, vibes from the IMC suggest that its next report may indicate a reduction in the level of organised crime. Clearly, that is to be welcomed. It must surely reach a stage where the level of organised crime is commensurate with that elsewhere in the United Kingdom and where those involved in organised crime are not connected with the republican movement, although they may be republicans. Under those circumstances, perhaps the police can be left to deal with those who cannot bring themselves in. However, currently that seems not to be the case, and Sinn Féin must examine seriously how it deals with the residual criminality that the IMC reports, and its refusal, so far, to engage in policing. The UUP considers those to be two major issues. The Democratic Unionist Party has made decommissioning a major issue. Decommissioning clearly took place, and the record of Hansard will show that both William McCrea and Ian Paisley Jnr accepted that. The IMC reports that there are some outstanding weapons issues and believes that there may be some weapons out there. It is a judgement call as to whether those weapons have been held back by those who refuse to comply with orders from the IRA; whether they are individual trophy weapons; whether there are lost hides; or whether the republican movement has a serious problem and has lied to everyone about its decommissioning being complete. We will wait to see how the IMC reports on that next time, because at the moment there is a conflict on decommissioning between the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) and the IMC. 10.30 am The next major issue is unionist confidence. It can be of little surprise that unionist confidence has taken a battering since the agreement. We need to show that the parties here can agree and produce something forward-looking: but that can only come when republicans sort themselves out. Likewise, we cannot leave loyalist paramilitaries twisting in the wind — out there, uncontrolled, still causing chaos — if we get to a stage in the autumn where there is some form of agreement. As you know, we have been working to provide those who wish to come in from the cold with a way in. Those who do not wish to come in from the cold will have to be left to the police, the courts and the Prison Service, and they can be locked up. There is an unfinished issue on parades. It is well known — because Gerry Adams described it all in a speech in Tullamore in 1994 at which an RTÉ journalist was present — that it had taken the republican movement three years to stir up the parading issue and produce community groups to object to those things. It was a useful war by other means: the movement was supposedly on ceasefire and then in talks, but it was a way of conducting the war by other means and of attacking unionism and unionist culture. It seems to me that it evolved then into a useful tool for beating up the police, because it became a method by which, if you objected to a parade, you caused a bit of a row, the police turned up and you had a ding-dong battle between the police and republicans. Parading got caught up in all of those things. It is clear that there has been some sort of political decision recently that they will back off parading for a bit. I welcome the efforts that have gone into keeping the parades peaceful and keeping republicans back from being offended at a level at which they attack people. I was quite encouraged until last night: I see that we are back into the same old game at Glengormley, where people are clodding stones and golf balls at a parade. That has got to be dealt with. Republicans must allow unionists to enjoy their culture and to have a peaceful parade without being under attack. That must be dealt with before we can have any peaceful way forward here. As political parties, we should have some thoughts on how to deal with the past. It is an enormous issue, and it cannot be dealt with quickly. The police’s Historical Enquiries Team is attempting to provide some closure. It was set up to examine historic cases to see whether families could be given more information as to what happened, and whether it is possible, in the light of new technologies, to bring someone to book for crimes committed over the past 30 years. Hopefully, for some families, it will bring a degree of closure. It is an enormous issue, but the political parties, by and large, have stayed away from it, and it is time that there was more engagement from the political parties on how we deal with the past. Of course, there are issues for republicans. The question of the disappeared remains unresolved. There are still people whose sons and fathers are lying buried in a bog somewhere. It would be clearly advantageous to sort out the issue of the disappeared, and to get those families their loved ones back and some degree of closure. The other enormous outstanding issue is that of exiles. Republicans and loyalists have been exiling people from their communities. Although these are not necessarily things that we can tackle directly, they are all issues that will haunt any future Government here while they are unresolved. The disappeared and exiles must be included in the mix. I want to turn to some issues in the comprehensive agreement that we are uncomfortable with. This is the deal that was nearly done between Sinn Féin and the DUP in November 2004. In particular, I want to look at the issue of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The comprehensive agreement said that the two roles should form a collective post. If, as was suggested recently in the Assembly, Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness were appointed to those posts, they should have been voted for jointly, as was the procedure for the SDLP and UUP candidates for those posts in the first Assembly. That was clearly a difficulty or embarrassment for the Democratic Unionist Party. Its negotiators appear to have negotiated an issue that concerns the parties that represent each of the tribes. The lead unionist party would propose the First Minister and the lead nationalist party would propose the Deputy First Minister. Interestingly, the original system allowed each community to have a say in whom the other community elected. For example, if unionism in the Assembly was neuralgic about Martin McGuinness’s being Deputy First Minister, the system allowed unionism to say that it was not happy with him. Therefore unionism in the Assembly, rightly or wrongly, had a veto. Likewise, nationalists might have been uncomfortable with Ian Paisley, and, because the office was a joint one, they could have said no. The cunning piece of negotiation that is the comprehensive agreement, however, will remove any unionist say in whom Sinn Féin appoints and any nationalist/republican say in whom unionism appoints. The joint ticket that everyone bought into in the first Assembly will have been removed. I would not mind if there had been logic to its removal, but it has been removed to avoid DUP embarrassment at having to put its hand up for Martin McGuinness. The system has been further confused by another cunning bit of negotiation to the effect that, having voted for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, d’Hondt would be triggered and each Minister would have to vote for all the other Ministers. Therefore if the SDLP or the Ulster Unionists were to object to the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister or to any of the Ministers who had been elected, we could not register our objection. If we did, we would be removed from government for the entire Assembly session. That is, all the Ministers of an objecting party would be removed from the Executive. That cunning piece of negotiation would create what I understand to be a nightmare for the DUP: the DUP and Sinn Féin in government together; and the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party being excluded from government. That must be the most amazing piece of negotiation that was ever seen. We take strong objection to those proposals in the comprehensive agreement. Turning to the review, several issues came up in it as a result of parties examining procedures in the first Assembly to see whether they could be improved. It is perfectly logical to examine what happened in the first Assembly in order to make improvements to it. For example, all the parties are agreed that we need some form of ministerial code. Indeed, the Executive were on the verge of producing one during the first Assembly, but it had not reached the Floor of the House before the Assembly was suspended. Such a code would be a good thing, and the Committee might like to consider it. It would be easy to get agreement around this table on the need for, and the details of, a ministerial code. It could be a victory for the Committee if the parties agreed something. In any case, a ministerial code that provides protection needs to be produced. Next, where power is vested may be an anorak issue. However, Northern Ireland is strange in that, when the state was set up in 1921, power was vested from Westminster in the Departments. Throughout the history of the Northern Ireland Parliament, and since, power has never been vested in Ministers. In a way, there is something unhealthy about power not being vested in the Assembly and given to Ministers from the Assembly. That means that we can be stood up, stood down, removed, sacked or whatever, and that has no effect at all on where the power lies. The power lies with each of the Departments and the permanent secretaries. The issue is not a deal breaker, but it concerns what is sensible for Northern Ireland if it is to have a working Assembly. Power should be vested in that Assembly and vested from the Assembly to the Ministers. There are also issues concerning the North/South bodies. We probably would not have any objection to increased reporting back from Ministers and their having much greater interaction with the Assembly on what is happening North/South. Although Ministers did report back to the Assembly, it was not something that the Assembly could do anything about. Therefore, we should examine what to do about making the North/South areas more accountable. We had a great reversal on the British-Irish Council because it did not even have a secretariat, and while the North/South aspect is certainly up and running properly, I am afraid that the east-west issue has been left behind; we must get it up to speed. The reform of public administration also raises issues. This may be a matter for another day, but it affects whether we have seven councils, with or without an Assembly. On a broader scale, those issues go to how Northern Ireland is governed, and they are perhaps worth some form of discussion. Members will know that we have tried to secure some sort of debate on the Floor of the House about the future of the Review of Public Administration (RPA) because it directly relates to how the Assembly would govern Northern Ireland if we ever reached agreement. We have never discussed the issue of the number of Departments. If we are to create a Department — or two — to deal with policing and justice, there would have to be some amalgamation, as the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that we are allowed 10 Departments. That issue would be better dealt with before we get to another election or set up another Government, if possible, so that we can fire up the Assembly on the basis on which we wish to proceed. Seán Farren talked about areas that were essential and areas that were desirable, and I can understand that, but I would argue that it is worth spending some time getting the new Assembly right before we fire it up again, rather than firing it up, and then getting into an inter-party wrangle as to what details should change. There is a logic to sorting all of this out first. If we ever get a Government up again here, there is a difficulty about dual and, indeed, triple mandates. Triple mandates have been sorted out in that, under the RPA, one cannot be a councillor and a MLA. However, the idea that one can be in Westminster, the Assembly, and in a council, all at the same time, seems absolutely daft and is inherently unhealthy. In Scotland, the media applied pressure to separate MSPs from MPs, and we need to examine that issue here. I wish to make a couple of final points, Mr Chairman. We have a difficulty in the comprehensive agreement’s setting up of another civic forum on an all-Ireland basis, given that the one that we had here did not perform very well. In fact, its use was extremely limited, and the view of people who sat on it was that it was extremely limited. The issue outstanding from the review about a Bill of Rights needs examination because, at the moment, we have a large number of groups across Northern Ireland who are fired up to believe that they are going to get socio-economic rights included in such a document. That includes the right to particular medical treatment, even should it cost £10,000 a day. People believe that. 10.45 am The agreement was quite clear about the bill of rights: it should contain rights that are specific to Northern Ireland. So what is it that is specific to Northern Ireland? Leaving out socio-economic rights — where the money goes is a matter for the politicians; it is not a matter of human rights — the only right that the UUPAG can think of is the right to parade. That is the only one unique to Northern Ireland. There may be disagreement about whether parading is a right, and we can discuss that, but it is the only one that jumps out as being peculiar to Northern Ireland. Finally, there is the issue of the Programme for Government. There was a drama the first time around. When the Assembly went live in November 1999, we had no Programme for Government. The result was that there was a fair amount of chaos, with individual Ministers taking decisions; there was no collective responsibility because there was no Programme for Government. If we have any hope of getting this up and running in the autumn, we need to start considering shortly, not the detail — that will come from the Departments — but areas that we believe, as parties or as a Committee, should be included in a Programme for Government. As you well know, the time line starts in the summer: by September the detail should be reasonably well firmed up in outline; by November it should be on paper; and then it will go through a process to go live in April. If we sit back and do nothing between now and the autumn, we will find ourselves, as we did in November 1999, with a Programme for Government that has no input from any of the political parties. Therefore it seems to make sense to give some thought to what should go into a Programme for Government. Mr Paisley Jnr: Alan, thank you for your submission and for the interesting revisionism that you have introduced into the discussion, the scoping exercise. I will come to that in a moment. Pardon me for having the cold. I hope you do not regard that as a concerted effort to poison you or kill you. Mr McFarland: Say again. Mr Paisley Jnr: I apologise for having the cold. I hope that you do not regard it as a concerted effort to have you killed or to poison you with something. Nonetheless, I apologise for that. Alan, can you make it clear whether you think that we are here to discuss issues, to negotiate issues or to scope obstacles? Mr McFarland: The remit of the Committee is not to scope obstacles; it is to scope the issues that will be required to be put in place to allow us to get the Government up and running again. If you are dealing with five political parties and you have a Committee, there is a logic in having worked out what each party thinks are the issues, and in having a form of discussion to see whether you can find some sort of agreement. That is not necessarily negotiating — at the high level that will be done, as you have declared, between the DUP and the Government. However, there is benefit in trying to find some common ground. Suppose, for example, that your negotiations with the Government are successful and that even though the other political parties may not agree, the Government decide to impose a firing-up of the Assembly again. You know well from the first Assembly that, in the end, we all have to work with one another, whether in the Executive or in Committees. So it would seem to make some sense that, if we can find some agreement on issues that are glaringly obvious as to how you deal with them, we should perhaps try to do that. The Minister, Mr Hanson, said that he has promised the DUP the comprehensive agreement in the autumn if they are good boys and girls. I presume that your difficulty will be that you do not want this Committee to steal your thunder on any of those issues. From a party political point of view, that is logical. In the end, we all hope to work together for the greater good of our constituents. The Committee should try to produce some positive wins, even if they are minor wins. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am touched by the fact that you are worried about my difficulties. However, let us get over that and assess this issue. You agree that we are here to find common ground in identifying the obstacles to the establishment of a Government. That appears to be a summary of what you have said. Mr McFarland: You use the word “obstacle”, but I think that that is not the Committee’s remit. However, I am prepared to stand corrected. Perhaps the Chairman would read out the Committee’s remit. Mr Paisley Jnr: I have the remit. I am trying to find out exactly, from what was contained in your submission, what you believe we are here to do. Mr McFarland: We are here to scope and identify the issues. Can we read the remit again, Mr Chairman, so we are absolutely clear? Mr Paisley Jnr: If it helps you, Alan, I am sure that we can read it again. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The remit is: “to scope the work which, in the view of the parties, needs to be done in preparation for Government.” That is from the Secretary of State’s letter of 26 May 2006. Mr McFarland: The remit is to scope the work that needs to be done. It is not simply about issues. The remit is to identify what work needs to be done to get the Government fired up again. Mr Paisley Jnr: That would include obstacles. Mr McFarland: It would include obstacles. However, it is not the remit of the Committee to identify obstacles. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am trying to grasp completely what you believe we are here to do. The remit includes the identification of obstacles. Mr McFarland: Absolutely. Mr Paisley Jnr: It is not a trick question, Alan. Mr McFarland: No, no. However, that is not the remit. Mr Paisley Jnr: From our discussions so far in the Committee, do you believe that legitimate obstacles have been identified? Mr McFarland: Many obstacles have been identified. It would be helpful if the Committee could prioritise those obstacles. I may believe that a certain issue poses an obstacle that should be prioritised, but my belief may not be shared by the other parties. Let me give you an example. Since 1998, decommissioning has been a major issue, and it was the prime obstacle that first crashed the Assembly. We were promised that decommissioning would start in June 1998 and be completed by May 2000. There was a clear time line, but decommissioning did not happen. It was a major problem. We fought the bit out and brought down the Assembly in an attempt to effect decommissioning because we agreed that it was a major issue with regard to the good faith and genuineness of republicans. The bulk of the IRA’s arsenal has now been decommissioned; you and William have accepted that fact, and it has been recorded in Hansard. There are residual issues. Although complete decommissioning is still an issue, it does not have the same priority as it did in 1998. We share the view that the major obstacle to be prioritised is Sinn Féin’s unwillingness to engage in policing. During the past week and a half, there have been some encouraging signs. Sinn Féin has engaged in consultation on the policing issue. The Sinn Féin statement attached to the comprehensive agreement states that the ardchomhairle will call an Ard-Fheis to discuss policing, once the legislation is sorted out. Those are encouraging signs that the party recognises the need to move on the policing issue. However, policing continues to be a major obstacle, and we have not got there yet. Similarly, it is not clear where the IRA stands on the criminality issue. Perhaps we need more clarity from an IMC report. Those are the major obstacles, but the other parties may believe that there are many other obstacles. The Committee needs to prioritise the obstacles so that we can identify issues that we can influence and affect. The Committee can also identify issues that we clearly cannot affect, even though we may wish to do so. Mr Paisley Jnr: Just curb your enthusiasm on decommissioning for a wee minute. We will come to that, I promise, but let us see if we can walk before we run. Before we start prioritising things, let us get agreement. Do you agree and believe that the principal obstacles have been identified over the past week or so of this Committee meeting? Mr McFarland: Each party has identified the obstacles — if you wish to use the term — difficulties, or problems that it sees to the successful firing-up of government. Mr Paisley Jnr: Those obstacles, problems, difficulties — Mr McFarland: Right. The question, I suppose, is can we find common ground, because if all — Mr Paisley Jnr: I did not ask that question. I will come to that in a moment. I want to establish that you believe the principle that the obstacles — or the problems — have been identified. Mr McFarland: We hope so. The difficulty is that, in some later discussion, one that has not been spotted before could come to mind. However, if the parties have had their say, logically the key obstacles should have been identified in broad terms. We may not have identified whether those are the obstacles or whether they are just the areas in which the obstacles lie, because some of them are extremely broad issues. Whether you can say that the whole obstacle identified is the issue, or whether it is a minor part of that that can be solved, is not necessarily clear, because we have not had a discussion on whether we have common ground on those. Indeed, parties may not have been able to have a discussion on what each other — [Interruption.] The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That is somebody’s mobile phone. Mr Kennedy: That is a very attractive tune. Mr McFarland: We have not had a discussion on what we each mean by particular things. Although we have had questioning back and forward, there may be other areas that will come to mind later today. Mr Paisley Jnr: Do you agree that, in its discussions last week, Sinn Féin has made no serious effort to remove the obstacles that so far have been identified by the unionist community: criminality and paramilitarism, and their link to Sinn Féin? Mr McFarland: We were the prime movers in setting up the IMC, which was vigorously opposed by your party as a toothless, useless organisation. It is encouraging that in recent months you have set a lot of store by the IMC reports. The IMC is reporting, as is the Organised Crime Task Force, on what appear to be improvements in Sinn Féin and the IRA’s movements towards normality. Earlier in the year, the IMC reported that the republican leadership — and I do not have the quotation here — was fully committed to peaceful and democratic means and constitutional politics, but that there were outstanding issues concerning senior republicans’ involvement in criminality, and their crime empire was still functioning. The OCTF, which is specifically designed to deal with organised crime, reported last week that there had been a drop in republican criminality. These are things that we will have to judge. Our view is that things have not progressed far enough for us to be comfortable going into Government with Sinn Féin — not that it is our call. As I have said before in this Committee, it is your call whether you go into Government with Sinn Féin. My sense is that, if they are moving in that direction, we can, perhaps, expect to see dramatic improvements in the autumn. Conor Murphy sat here last week and said to William that dramatic improvements could be expected in the IMC reports. However, we do not know that; we will have to wait and see. If that is the way they are moving, there will — eventually — be a judgement call for you as to when the commitment of the republican leadership, its instructions, and the adherence to those instructions by people on the ground, move from being a political issue to a fully criminal issue, so that the people doing it are not republican criminals, but simply criminals who refuse to adhere to republican instructions. That is a call for you at some stage, presumably as a result of IMC reports. 11.00 am Mr Paisley Jnr: Let us not worry about what my judgement call will be; let us try to focus on the Ulster Unionist Party’s position and its submission. Am I correct in assuming that what you have just said means that you agree that Sinn Féin has made, and is making, a serious effort to remove criminality and paramilitarism, and their links, from its party? Mr McFarland: That is what the Independent Monitoring Commission has reported. As the organisation that encouraged it and had it set up — against objections from the DUP — there is a degree of requirement for us to accept what it is producing from intelligence reports from America, the UK and the Republic of Ireland. It is not unreasonable that we accept as correct its analysis of these intelligence reports. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am sure that we can ask the IMC, and we can go and talk to them. However, I am not asking them; I am asking Alan McFarland, senior negotiator on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party: does the Ulster Unionist Party believe that Sinn Féin has made, and is making, serious efforts to remove criminality and paramilitary links from its political party? Mr McFarland: I have just told you that the IMC says that it is, and we accept that. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am not worried about what the IMC has said; I am asking what the Ulster Unionist Party thinks. Mr McFarland: I will repeat it. The IMC says that it is, and we accept that. The IMC says that it is, and we accept that. You can ask the question another 10 times, and you will get the same answer. Mr Paisley Jnr: So I am right to conclude that you believe that Sinn Féin is making a serious effort to remove — Mr McFarland: The IMC says that it is, and we accept that. Mr Paisley Jnr: Given the level of criminality, paramilitarism and other unacceptable actions by republicans and their links to Sinn Féin, do you agree that it would be impossible to form a Government, at present, that includes Sinn Féin and unionism? Mr McFarland: We have said that we do not believe that the time has yet arrived where we should be firing up a Government again with Sinn Féin, because there is no point in trying to produce a Government in which Sinn Féin is not tied to the rule of law and order through the police, and when the IMC is still reporting that its internal criminal organisation has been as active as it is. Notwithstanding that, as we go through the year and have further IMC reports, it may be possible — if republicans are serious and genuine — to get to a stage where most reasonable people might think that the criminality can be tackled by the police, customs and organised crime units. Mr Paisley Jnr: So if the Ulster Unionist Party were fortunate enough to find itself in the position electorally that we are in today, you would not be prepared to form an Executive with Sinn Féin immediately. Mr McFarland: I have said that at the moment too much is unclear about Sinn Féin’s intentions — particularly regarding policing — to allow us to do that. However, as I said before, this is your call. You are in the driving seat, so you call it. Mr Paisley Jnr: Would it be fair to deduce then that you agreed with the position that our party took four or five weeks ago when we said “Certainly not” to an Executive with Sinn Féin? Did you agree with that position? Mr McFarland: This is an ongoing process, and we have to make judgements as we go. You make judgement calls, and we have made judgement calls in the past 10 years — some of which were good, and some of which could have been better. You will have judgement calls to make, and the penalties for getting them wrong can be difficult. However, at this moment I can confirm for the tenth time that the Ulster Unionist Party does not believe that — were it in charge of unionism — it would be comfortable going into Government with Sinn Féin, because of, in particular, policing and criminality. Mr Paisley Jnr: The paper that the UUP originally submitted made little to no mention of paramilitary activity and decommissioning. However, from your discussion today and the answers that you have given, you believe that those issues have not been fully resolved. Your paper may have given a wrong impression that those issues were resolved, as far as you were concerned. You are now saying that the issues of decommissioning and paramilitary activity have not yet been satisfactorily resolved, and therefore we cannot go into Government. Is that a fair deduction? Mr McFarland: You will recall that the DUP said that decommissioning would never, ever happen. Peter Robinson said that it was unimportant. We fought for decommissioning because it was a vital sign that republicans were acting in good faith, because if they were genuinely no longer offering unionists violence, they had no need for their weapons. There is an inconsistency between what the IICD has said and what the IMC has said. We had the IMC’s view read out the other day. It is not sure what is going on here: whether individuals have held some weapons back, or whether the south Armagh brigade has held weapons back to defend its organised crime empire. It is not clear what is going on. It would be helpful if there were more clarity. You know well that there are all sorts of weapons around. We hear anecdotal reports that UVF weapons from 1913 are still sitting about in people’s barns, and such like. There have always been weapons. The question is whether the people with the weapons are trying to kill us. It strikes me that the IICD has reported that the republican movement — the IRA — has decommissioned the vast bulk of its arsenals. Either that is an absolute load of nonsense, in which case quite a number of fairly important people in the IICD, and indeed a couple of clergymen, have been completely hoodwinked and Sinn Féin and the IRA have been lying to us completely, and they have an entire arsenal sitting waiting, or we accept that a substantial act of decommissioning has taken place. You and William McCrea are on record in this Committee as accepting that. There are some outstanding queries, but, by and large, decommissioning should not be resurrected as a hook to get ourselves on again and prevent Government here. Mr Paisley Jnr: Yes. Again, the record shows that you are raising this issue of decommissioning. I am talking generically about criminality and paramilitarism. We will come to decommissioning in a moment, and I will give you an opportunity to talk about decommissioning, but, for the record, Peter Robinson said that decommissioning was not the only priority. I do not think that he made the statement that you have attributed to him. However, we will come back to those issues. If these issues have not been resolved satisfactorily, it begs the question of why you went into Government with them. Why did you make that judgement call? Given that these matters have not been resolved satisfactorily, do you agree that the judgement call that was made here four or five weeks ago not to form an Executive was the correct judgement call to make? I want to establish that. Mr McFarland: I am confused as to why you need this comfort blanket or dummy to chew on that we are not objecting to you going into Government five weeks ago with Sinn Féin. Mr Paisley Jnr: Just answer the question, Alan. Mr McFarland: I have said to you already that, in our view, the time is not yet right for a Government to be formed, but it may be right later on this year. At the moment we do not have the cover, from the reports, to give everyone comfort that they would be doing the right thing. We can keep rephrasing the same question — Mr Paisley Jnr: It is not the question that I am focusing on: it is the answer. Perhaps we could refocus the answer. Do you believe that it was the correct judgement call to make? The answer is yes or no. Mr McFarland: I have already said that, at the moment — Mr Paisley: So the answer was yes? Is that what you are saying? Mr McFarland: I am really confused. You keep on going: “Just for the record, just for the record, just for the record”. What is this about? We are trying to have a sensible discussion here. It was the correct decision, in my view, that when Gerry Adams proposed Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness for First Minister and Deputy First Minister your party did not jump at it. Absolutely: I have said that about five or six times now in different guises, and I can keep saying the same thing. It seems to be some sort of comfort blanket for the DUP that the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group agrees with them on this matter. We agree with you. Mr Paisley Jnr: Thank you. If you had given me that answer to begin with, that would have helped — we could have got a little further. Can I say once again that we are not here for a discussion; we are here to ask and answer questions for clarification. Perhaps we can have a discussion at the margins somewhere else. You raised the issue of policing in your presentation. Do you generally believe that the transfer of policing powers should take place as quickly as possible after devolution has been established, or should it wait until an assessment has been made that the public has confidence that those powers should be transferred? Mr McFarland: Well, the transfer of policing and justice is a matter for the Assembly under the agreement. The Assembly will decide when it is comfortable with the transfer of policing and justice. I am heartened by the speed at which, in December, you were busily getting down to discussing policing here. Within a month of the comprehensive agreement you were straight into discussions with Sinn Féin on the modalities of policing. In fact, the comprehensive agreement timetable says, under February: “Agreement reached on modalities for devolution of Criminal Justice”. As we know, although Sinn Féin and the SDLP disagree with this, you have confirmed that, as far as you are concerned, this agreement is the only deal in town. You were straight into that within a month, but the comprehensive agreement says that the aim was to try to get policing and justice devolved within two years: “The British Government will work to promote the necessary confidence to allow such a vote to take place within two years.” So the Assembly needs to decide, and the Assembly will clearly vote on this when it feels comfortable that the place is ready for policing and justice to be devolved. Mr Paisley Jnr: That is how I view it — that it takes the Assembly to have confidence on behalf of the people. As regards the speed with which we are moving — well, after 300 years of a disputed crisis and 40 years of terrorism, I do not think that a couple of years after an Assembly has been established is really a lot of speed. We have seen the discussion paper that the Government have published in terms of the devolution of policing and justice. There are about six permutations of how a Department or Departments might operate. Have you a favourite or preferred option? Would you be happy with one Minister running one Department, or would you like to see two Ministers, or two junior Ministers in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM)? How would you like to see it? Mr McFarland: Chairman, this is wonderful. It is 11.14 am and Ian Paisley Jnr is inviting me to negotiate the future of policing in Northern Ireland in a Committee with Martin McGuinness and the SDLP. Let’s go. If you wish to sit here now and discuss how many Departments there should be, or whether there should be one Minister or two, I am up for that. I just wonder whether you understand what you are doing in this Committee. If you do, and you wish to continue asking the questions, I will get into it, and no doubt the other parties will wish to join in negotiations with the DUP on the future of policing and justice in Northern Ireland. Are you sure you wish to ask that question? Mr Paisley Jnr: Do not get carried away; do not get too excited now. Again, focus on the question. We have accepted that we are not here to negotiate. Mr McFarland: Why would you ask the question, if you do not wish to negotiate? Mr Paisley Jnr: I am not negotiating anything with you; I am simply asking a question. Which of the six permutations do you prefer? After all, you raised it in your submission, so I should be allowed to ask you a question on it. Mr McFarland: I am confused. Ian Paisley Jnr and William McCrea, in particular, have made enormous play today about how they are only here to scope and identify and how there will no negotiation in this Committee. However, you are now moving into some form of negotiation on how many Departments and Ministers there should be when policing and justice is devolved here. That is wonderful, but I suggest that we leave the negotiation until we have finished our questioning. Then we can all get stuck in to negotiating the devolution of policing and justice to Northern Ireland. I am all for that and would like to get into that discussion with you. Mr Paisley Jnr: You appear to be very reluctant to answer a very simple question on clarification. In your submission, you raised the Department of Policing and Justice — Mr McFarland: As issues that need to be resolved. Mr Paisley Jnr: You obviously raised it as an issue that you want to have scoped. It is an issue that you believe is important, and if there are obstacles they need to be identified. We all agree that there are obstacles here, but I am simply trying to establish for the record which of the six permutations you prefer, given the fact that you have raised the issue. No one is asking you to negotiate anything; we are merely asking you to answer a simple, straightforward question on clarification. Do you want to tell us which permutation you prefer for setting up that Department? Mr McFarland: I am more than happy to get into detailed discussion with the DUP or any other party here regarding how the Committee should take forward a recommendation regarding the number of Departments and Ministers that there should be, and how policing and justice should be handled. We have identified the positions of each party under the broad heading of issues that need to be resolved. The DUP, in particular, has made enormous play of not negotiating, not going into detail and not discussing; you are simply here to list the headings that need to be resolved. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot, on the one hand, say that you will only identify the broad areas and that you will not negotiate or go into any detail or discussion, and then, on the other hand, try to press other parties to get into negotiation with you. If you wish to negotiate these issues, I am happy to do it around this table when our questioning has finished. Mr Paisley Jnr: It took you some time to answer my first question, and it is taking you quite some time to answer my third question, but we will try again. You appear to be confused that we are here to have detailed discussion when we have already agreed that we are here to identify issues. Again, I am asking for an answer to a straightforward clarification question. I am not asking you to negotiate anything or to lay anything on the line, but you have identified the issue of policing and justice. Your submission only contains one sentence on it. Will you elaborate and give us a straightforward answer? Do you favour one of the six permutations for the policing and justice Department? Mr McFarland: Which bit of “we will discuss this after the questioning has finished“ does Ian Paisley Jnr not understand? Which bit does he not understand on the fourth or fifth time of saying it? Mr Paisley Jnr: I am merely trying to find out, Alan, if you will give us a straightforward answer. Mr McFarland: Chairman, which bit does he not understand? Mr Paisley Jnr: I understand everything. I understand that you have not been prepared to answer this question. There is a proposal for policing and justice, which you have referred to in your submission. We know that there are permutations regarding the setting up of a Department. Are you able to tell us which one you favour? 11.15 am Mr Kennedy: It appears from the earlier presentations that Mr Paisley Jnr attaches some importance to that issue. However, as the Committee is scoping and identifying issues, we are presumably leaving negotiation and the practical outworking of such issues for further discussion, after all the parties have been questioned on their initial presentations. Although the DUP highlighted policing and justice as an issue for scoping, it did not indicate its preferred option. Ian, you might accept that having not done so yourself, it is slightly unreasonable to expect that of others. Clearly, the UUP has continued difficulty with that question, but we have provided an answer. Mr Paisley Jnr: Danny, the point is that you could have asked the question. Indeed, you did ask the question and were satisfied with the answers from the Democratic Unionist Party. I wonder why the Ulster Unionist Party is reluctant to answer. I am sure that you agree that policing poses problems and is an obstacle for some people. There are issues that need to be resolved as far as unionists are concerned. The DUP has brought up discriminatory fifty-fifty recruitment and the failure of republicans to support the police. The UUP’s presentation was scant on that, although there was some elaboration today. I want the UUP to clarify that. Mr Kennedy: Let me give you a copper-bottomed guarantee that the UUP will continue to explore those issues in absolute detail when and if there are negotiations or proper discussions within this Committee. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I am reluctant to intervene in that wee bit of a logjam, but is it possible to involve all parties? The discussion and questioning has been manoeuvred in different ways over the past few days. If Ian Paisley does not mind, can we bring in one member from each other party so that they can ask questions? Mr Paisley Jnr: To be perfectly fair, each party has deployed, without critique, a system of interrogation over the last number of days in which a person has the floor to ask questions. I want to complete a series of questions on policing and other subjects. If people want to come in then when it is their turn — The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I was trying to involve as many parties and members as I could. Mr Paisley Jnr: It is unfair to interrupt a person who is in the middle of in a line of questioning. That has not happened during any other questioning. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I understand that. Mr M McGuinness: When the Democratic Unionist Party had made its submission, I was first to ask questions. I did so for about 15 or 20 minutes and then I gave way, out of respect to my other colleagues who were sitting around and to give them the opportunity to engage in the discussion. The DUP should consider opening the discussion up to others, because during the course of the day there will be plenty of opportunities for the DUP to continue its discussion or questioning of the Ulster Unionist Party. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I think that it involves everybody more, if the other parties — Mr Paisley Jnr: I am afraid that there has been a process to this, and if someone has the floor and a line of questioning, it is grossly unfair to interrupt them or to try to prevent that person from getting answers. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): No, I am not trying to do that. Mr Paisley Jnr: If that is the way that business is to be conducted, it is a disgrace. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I am not trying to prevent that; I am trying to involve people. Mr Paisley Jnr: People will have to wait their turn. Mr McNarry: Chairman, Ian has a point about the approach. It seems to change depending on who is sitting in your seat. It might even change if you changed what you had agreed on a previous day. Could we remove interrogation from the atmosphere? Mr McFarland: Trained. Mr Kennedy: Not so trained, apparently. Mr McNarry: It serves no purpose for us to interrogate each other. I know that there is a line of questioning that is intense; that is acceptable, but if someone is here to interrogate, it creates an adversarial atmosphere about the line of questioning. The UUP just wants to give answers and facts, and not, as William repeatedly said, to be grilled. He must have felt like a fish under the barbecue at times. We should try to remove that adversarial element. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I do not want to divert from whatever happened before. I just want to involve people as much as possible, and to create gaps in which others can ask questions. Mr Kennedy: Hitherto, custom and practice in this Committee has been for one party at a time to ask full and detailed questions. We do not have a problem with that, and would be inclined not to depart from it. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is in your hands. Mr Paisley Jnr: Alan, do you believe that the IRA has decommissioned all of its weapons? Mr McFarland: The IICD has told us that the vast bulk of the IRA’s weaponry has been decommissioned. Mr Paisley Jnr: There is absolutely no doubt that decommissioning has taken place. Everyone accepts that. Mr McFarland: Have you accepted that? Mr Paisley Jnr: Yes. We made that public some time ago. Do you believe that all of the IRA’s weapons have been decommissioned, that it was done in good faith and that we should draw a line there and consider it sufficient? Mr McFarland: The difficulty is that we do not know. Mr Paisley Jnr: Exactly. Mr McFarland: We do not know. The IICD and the IMC have said that it was impossible to know. I have no doubt that there are weapons hides that were under the control of people who have died or were drunk when they buried the weapons and cannot remember where. I have no doubt at all that individual members of the IRA have held back weapons that they have had for years and do not want to give in. I have no doubt that others have held weapons back for personal protection because they or their area may come under threat, or that those involved in serious criminal activity have held weapons back to protect their criminal empires. The question is whether we still think that the IRA has held back an arsenal with which it intends to attack the state. I do not believe that it has, although I have no doubt that there are weapons out there, among them trophies from the First World War and the Second World War. Northern Ireland is knee deep in weapons of various sorts. The question is, do those who have them intend to overthrow the state or not? The notion that every last weapon in Northern Ireland has to be handed in before we can have government is a dangerous one to get caught up on. I caution against that, because it is a no-win situation. Nobody knows what weapons are out there or who has them. Mr Paisley Jnr: Do you think that the IRA may have held weapons back for serious and organised crime? Mr McFarland: I have no doubt that those individuals who are involved in serious and organised crime have held weapons back to protect their criminal empires. Mr Paisley Jnr: Has the IRA as an organisation done that? Mr McFarland: I do not know. The IMC said that the leadership of the IRA is serious about ceasing criminality, but that individual senior republicans are continuing their criminal activities. I understand from the report last week of the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) that that activity appears to have dropped and that that drop may be linked to the raids in south Armagh. 11.30 am Mr Paisley Jnr: Would it be fair to characterise your attitude to decommissioning as relaxed? Mr McFarland: I have said what I have said, Chairman; it does not matter how I feel personally. Those are the facts. Mr Kennedy: We might also echo Peter Robinson whom you quoted this morning: there are issues other than decommissioning. Mr Paisley Jnr: There is more than one priority; that is right. Everyone agrees that decommissioning is not the only priority. Some people did get rather hooked on it. Do you accept that decommissioning must be done in a way that builds unionist confidence? Mr McFarland: Decommissioning was key to unionist confidence. In its 2002 statement, the IRA said that it would decommission in a way that would maximise unionist confidence. Decommissioning was never about weapons. If we had the money, you and I could be back from eastern Europe tomorrow night with a planeload of weapons. The world is awash with weapons. Mr Paisley Jnr: It is not that easy. Mr McFarland: It is. Decommissioning was about republicans telling the unionist community that they were no longer offering us violence. If they were holding on to their weapons, the possibility remained that they would be prepared to use violence again. That is why the weapons issue was so important: it was a sign of republicans’ good faith and intentions. Their reluctance to give up their weapons raised serious doubts about whether they were indeed committed to the path they claimed to be on. When they did decommission, they managed to make a complete hames of it. They had several opportunities to decommission in a way that would maximise public confidence, but they did not avail of them. It is to be much regretted that they had not the sense to see the importance of decommissioning properly, because they cannot decommission again. That is the danger of getting caught up on this issue — it is not possible to do a rerun with a photograph. Decommissioning has happened. There still are weapons out there but I do not believe that they are there for the overthrow of the state. It would have been better if republicans had decommissioned properly between 1998 and 2000, as they were supposed to. That did not happen, and trying to revisit the issue is a no win. Mr Paisley Jnr: Has decommissioning maximised unionist confidence? Mr McFarland: Certainly not. Unionist confidence has been anything but maximised by the manner and timing of decommissioning. That opportunity has passed; regrettably, it is not possible to rerun it with a photograph to maximise public confidence. Mr Paisley Jnr: Would an inventory of what has been decommissioned be helpful in building unionist confidence? Mr McFarland: From the beginning, we have called for the publication of an inventory. It is most unfortunate that Gen de Chastelain had a private agreement that an inventory should wait until all paramilitary groups had decommissioned. The logic is that one small group, such as the LVF, deciding not to decommission — even though the other loyalist paramilitaries had — can hobble the entire process and we will not know what republicans have decommissioned. We have called throughout this process for the publication of an inventory and we call for it again. Mr Paisley Jnr: You rightly identify the issue of consistency and you talked earlier about ensuring that loyalist arms are got rid of as well. There has been comment on your party’s linking itself to the Progressive Unionist Party in the Assembly. That raises the issue of consistency. Do you agree with Sylvia Hermon that that link is wrong? Mr McFarland: You led in with loyalist weapons and moved on to the Assembly. Although those are two different issues, I am happy to take questions on them. Do you wish to move completely to the Assembly issue, to continue on weapons, or to continue on the issue of loyalist paramilitaries? Mr Paisley Jnr: My question was on the issue of consistency. Do you agree with Sylvia Hermon’s assessment? Mr McFarland: I will deal with that in a minute. First, since we are on the weapons issue, let me deal with the issue of loyalism and loyalist weapons. As I said in my presentation, we cannot get to a stage where the DUP and Sinn Féin will form a government in the autumn and while loyalists are still running around, unguided, and fully armed. Broad unionism can take some responsibility to pave the way for those organisations that wish to move from paramilitarism to a political path; to disarm; and for the rest, which do not wish to do that, to be left to the rigours of the courts and the law. We have chosen to take that responsibility. You may disagree with us. We have been at this for some time now, since Sir Reg took over. In one of his early speeches, he announced his intention to do it, and the process is now under way. It is clearly going to be time-limited, and the public and broad unionism are going to need to see some progress. What took place here was quite complicated, but I will run through it for your benefit. Mr Paisley Jnr: Thank you. Mr McFarland: The 2003 Assembly election produced numbers that, if the Executive had been fired up, would have led to three Ulster Unionist, three DUP, two Sinn Féin and two SDLP Ministers in government: a 6:4 unionist majority, which broadly reflects the community. Of course, in the first Assembly, because there were lots of individual unionist independent Members, the Executive did not look like that: it was 5:5. However, 6:4 reflects the proper position of the community in general. When Jeffrey Donaldson and his two colleagues moved from us to you, it gave the DUP four Ministers in the Executive, and we understand that Jeffrey, as part of his deal to move, was promised the fourth Ministry. That fourth Ministry moved with Jeffrey to the DUP, so the relative strengths were 4:2:2:2. The unfortunate activities of Mr Berry last year and his subsequent departure from the DUP moved that ministerial position to Sinn Féin. So it produced a situation, if a Government were to be fired up, of three DUP Ministers, three Sinn Féin Ministers, two Ulster Unionist Ministers and two SDLP Ministers, moving back to the 5:5 ratio — a move away from the unionist reflection of the community. We discovered that if we had one more Member in the Assembly, it would take that unionist Department back from Sinn Féin and restore the Ulster Unionists’ position to what it was at the time of the election — three Ulster Unionists, three DUP, two Sinn Féin and two SDLP — and restore the unionist balance. As a political party we felt that that was quite positive for us in that it put us back where we should have been, according to the electorate, and to where we were before the removal of Mr Donaldson. Also, unionism quite likes the idea of taking a seat off Sinn Féin. What we could not understand in the aftermath was the deep angst of the DUP. We restored the balance, the position that the people voted for and also the unionist majority. The matter was clarified slightly by the television programme featuring Mr Berry, in which Mr Berry had been walking with God, was no longer walking with God and now is walking with God again. There was every evidence that, under the tutelage of Rev William McCrea or Rev Ian Paisley over the summer, he would see the light and be brought back into the fold in the autumn, which would have had several effects. It would have taken a seat off Sinn Féin — a win for the DUP; it would have returned to Jeffrey what he sees as his rightful fourth ministerial position; and it would return the Ulster Unionists down to the floor, from where they should never have risen by daring to get an extra Member in the Assembly. Politically, from our point of view, it was the sensible thing to do. Of course, it kicks in only when the DUP does a deal with Sinn Féin — when the Democratic Unionist Party is in government with Sinn Féin. That is the background to our having an extra Member. Its effect kicks in only when the deal is done. Mr Paisley Jnr: Was that not premature, given that you accept that there was not the slightest possibility of forming a Government five weeks ago? Mr McFarland: It was done then because of time constraints. We discovered that we could do it, according to Standing Orders. Others, including the Northern Ireland Office, thought we could not. People who had not done their homework were taken by surprise. It was time-sensitive because there was every indication that the Secretary of State, having spotted what we were doing, would step in. After all, this is the Hain Assembly, and they are his Standing Orders — he can change them daily. There was a threat that if it did not happen at that time, at the setting-up of the Assembly, we would lose the opportunity. It was a tactical decision, taken for practical and good political reasons. Mr Paisley Jnr: You say that the move was tactical; that it was good for you and the sensible thing to do. You must have given some thought to the person you would try to attract into your fold. Did you approach any other unionist Member — Bob McCartney, for example? Mr McFarland: We are on record as saying that we talked to a number of people. I do not propose to go into who we were talking to, why we talking to them and whether they were happy with the prospects. That is a dead end, I am afraid. Mr McNarry: Chairman, can we have a ruling on this? This is something that could be discussed downstairs in the Members’ Coffee Lounge. Is it really relevant to preparation for government? If one party divulged to another party the tactics that it might engage in when we were close to forming a Government, then we would be in the realms of “Beam me up, Scotty”. 11.45 am Mr Paisley Jnr: I asked a question about consistency. Do you agree with Sylvia Hermon’s assessment that the UUP ought not to have aligned itself with the Progressive Unionist Party? Alan’s answer to that was a five- to six-minute historical explanation. I did not ask for any of the information that he was prepared to give. It is very interesting that he was prepared to spill his soul. The fact that he has put the information out there allows it to be scrutinised. He could have answered the question, to which I will return. Do you agree with Sylvia Hermon’s position that the link with the Progressive Unionist Party should cease? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I cannot make a ruling on the questions that members ask. Earlier, I did try to speed up the process, and members did their best to follow procedures. For the past few days, all the parties have followed this procedure. It would be beneficial if we continued to identify the obstacles to preparation for government. Mr McNarry: You would not want to give offence to another member by saying that that is none of his or her business. Mr Paisley Jnr: I have a thick skin, so do not worry. Mr McFarland: I know that you have. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have had much latitude about what parties ask and what parties answer. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am amazed that Alan believes all this stuff about Jeffrey Donaldson. It sounds like a script from the ‘Folks on the Hill’. Perhaps that is where Alan gets his material from, or perhaps that is where the ‘Folks on the Hill’ gets its material from. Mr McNarry: He might just do you out of a Cabinet position, Ian. Mr Paisley Jnr: It is very amazing. Let us return to the question that provoked such an answer. Do you agree with Sylvia Hermon’s assessment that this alliance with the Progressive Unionist Party should cease? I ask that because of the original question on the issue of consistency. I am sure that you will agree that consistency in issues such as the unionist community’s confidence that violence has ended, and political parties having links to violence and criminal and paramilitary activities, is pretty central to the obstacles that we are scoping. Mr Kennedy: The individual views of any member of the Ulster Unionist Party on any issue, however interesting they may be to you, with your obsession with the views of our party, are not relevant to scoping the obstacles and issues that need to be addressed for preparation for government. The Ulster Unionist Party will continue to examine this issue and will deal with it in its own quarters. Mr Paisley Jnr: Do you disagree with Sylvia Hermon? Mr Kennedy: I have given my answer. I would respectfully ask you not to pursue the issue. That is my answer, and even if you do not like it, we will continue to give that answer. Mr Paisley Jnr: I can understand why she does not like that link, given that she is married to one of Northern Ireland’s most respected former Chief Constables. That link with a paramilitary organisation causes her, and the people who support her, considerable personal embarrassment. Do you agree with her very public assessment that she thinks that that link should cease? Mr Kennedy: We have outlined the background to the decision. Quite frankly, the personal views of any member of the Ulster Unionist Party in respect of a decision taken by the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group are not relevant to the work of this Committee. Mr Paisley Jnr: There is also the issue of inconsistency, principally in relation to the IRA and Sinn Féin. According to the OCTF, it is calculated that the Provisionals make over £100 million a year from ill-gotten gains from criminality. Do you believe, Alan, that those benefits are derived from the organisation or from individuals? If they are to the benefit of the organisation, do you believe that Sinn Féin benefits from them? Mr McFarland: I do not know. All we have to rely on are the reports of the IMC, and it is fair to say that unionist confidence in the IMC is growing. In fact your own party has welcomed effusively the last two IMC reports as being major documents. We have only what the OCTF and IMC reports tell us. As I said earlier, we are not yet at a stage at which we can be confident that Sinn Féin and the IRA have moved away from criminality, and we must wait and see what those reports, in which both you and I have confidence, tell us in the next six months. Mr Paisley Jnr: A party with a link to a £100 million-plus criminal empire is certainly not compatible with government; neither is it desirable for any unionist party to want to be in government with it. Mr McFarland: This is about the twenty-fifth time that we have said that issues on policing and criminality remain to be solved; the reason for having this Committee is to identify that those are issues to be dealt with. We agree with that, and we will have to wait and see in the coming months whether republicans are dealing with those. Mr Paisley Jnr: In your presentation you raised the issue of the comprehensive agreement. Do you accept that the Belfast Agreement has failed? Mr McFarland: No. Why would the Belfast Agreement have failed when you have agreed — in fact, you are the only party that is still running around waving this as your Nirvana when in the autumn Minister Hanson will give you all this as your great victory in the world? This is the Belfast Agreement, and a few modifications to make life slightly better, and a few appalling negotiation points, which effectively remove a unionist veto and remove the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP from government if they do not agree with Martin McGuinness’s being Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Paisley Jnr: So the Belfast Agreement is a success? Mr McFarland: The Belfast Agreement is mixed, in that some areas of it have been extremely successful. We got our Government up here; Northern Ireland is a better, more peaceful place because of it. We discovered outstanding issues that were not right, and those must be dealt with and modified. I have a copy of the DUP manifesto from 1988; I gaze at it occasionally, just to remind myself of the real world. In it there are three key demands on which the Democratic Unionist Party stood: the consent principle; the removal of articles 2 and 3; and the return of devolved government to Northern Ireland. They were three major platforms on which the Democratic Unionist Party stood for 30 years. The DUP ran away from talks. I was part of the Ulster Unionist Party delegation on the night that the DUP left with Bob McCartney. William McCrea rushed across to Jeffrey Donaldson, asking him where his Hibernian sash was, as they stormed out, leaving us to deal with our political enemies on our own. The Ulster Unionist Party achieved devolution, the removal of articles 2 and 3, and the consent principle: the three key DUP points for the past 30 years. If you say that that is failure, that is your view; my view is that it is success. It did not work out as it should have because others, as Seán Farren said yesterday, did not meet their commitments. There was a clear commitment in the Belfast Agreement for republicans to disarm within two years and to stop their paramilitary and criminal activity. Those things did not happen, and as a result the Ulster Unionist Party brought the Assembly to a close on three occasions to try and make them happen, and finally they have stopped now. As you have heard from the parties round the table in this review, there are many issues that must be sorted out. There are areas of effectiveness and efficiency, and we have outstanding questions over dealing with policing and criminality. If those are dealt with, we stand some chance of getting a Government up and running again, and there is a penalty for not doing so. We are faced with a repartition of Northern Ireland later this year under the RPA. I have been speaking to members of your party from Tyrone who are getting extremely exercised that Tyrone and Fermanagh are facing what the unionists in Cavan and Monaghan faced in 1922 — the redrawing of the border on the River Bann and a harmonisation of big councils with their counterparts in the South. I know that your supporters in the west of the Province are not at all happy about that. According to the Secretary of State, the only way to head this off is for a Government to be set up here. That is a serious issue that must be dealt with, and there is a high penalty to pay if it is not. Issues such as education and rates are sitting there, and if we do not get Government back, then we get into all sorts of trouble sorting them out. There are issues that must be sorted out for effectiveness and efficiency and for the future of Northern Ireland, particularly the future of the unionist community. Overall, the signing of the Belfast Agreement was the right thing to do, but it was difficult and there were hard decisions to be made. Some people did not meet their commitments, and the safety nets promised by our Government were not provided when required. There have been failures, but it was the right thing to do, and I think that history will prove that — although it seems a bit strange now. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am a bit of a historian myself, Alan, and I have collected some Ulster Unionist Party manifestos. I have some from the 1950s and 1960s, but I have a more recent one in which Jim Nicholson says “No guns, no government”, shortly after which a government with guns was formed. But I digress. Do you accept that the Belfast Agreement has failed to attract unionist support? Mr McFarland: It attracted the majority of unionist support initially, although that support has leached away for the reasons that I have just described. People who were supposed to meet commitments did not meet them, and this has resulted in a reduction in unionist confidence in Government here. However, it could be argued that the issues that caused that reduction in confidence — mainly decommissioning — are largely solved. There is an issue over Sinn Féin supporting the police. You made the deal with it in 2004 — I refer you again to the comprehensive agreement — wherein you had a deal over policing. If Sinn Féin meets that commitment to policing, then clearly unionist confidence will rise again. These are all cause and effect, but they are not things that the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group can deal with. We can only try to do good and push this forward where we can, and our current mission on this is to try and bring a closure to loyalist paramilitarism. The contribution made by the Democratic Unionist Party to any of this has been virtually nil. What we are getting from it at the moment is catch-up, because this comprehensive agreement is the Belfast Agreement with a few skirts to hide the embarrassment of the party’s U-turn. The DUP comes along to this 10 years later. It is good that you are coming along; it is good that you are engaging; it is good that you have examined issues in the comprehensive agreement — which is the Belfast Agreement with a few improvements. Hopefully when you get round to doing the deal we will get ourselves back on track. Unionist communities take their lead from their politicians. If their politicians are constantly telling them that they are being sold down the river and that the whole thing is a disaster, then that is what they will believe. The moment you do this deal you will be out telling your communities about it, in the same way as republicans, when they decide to do policing, will be out telling young republicans that it is acceptable to join the police. If you ever get round to doing a deal, you will no doubt be out extolling the virtues of whatever agreement you make. However, that agreement, as Tony Blair keeps telling us, is the Belfast Agreement. It may have modifications, but it is the Belfast Agreement. At that stage you will have to go to your followers and tell them about the wonderful deal you got, and how they should support it. 12.00 noon Mr Paisley Jnr: That is very helpful, Alan. Do you think that one of the reasons why the agreement failed was because unionists believed that it was a process to something else and not a settlement? Do you think that it is a settlement? Mr McFarland: That is an interesting question. What is a settlement? There is nothing else in life that does not move. We all get older. We go through our jobs and our personal lives and gain experience. Nothing stays still. There is a strange view — particularly in unionism — that somehow, and at some stage, we will reach a political nirvana where the world will stop and all political parties will accept that they know their place and are willing to stay there, wherever that place may be. Nothing else in life works like that. Do we expect republicans, for example, to stop being republicans? I certainly do not. I expect them to stop attempting to kill me and make me into a republican, but I accept their full right to battle on with their political views in whatever way they see fit, as long as they do not try to force others to believe the same things through violence. It is not a settlement; there is no such thing as a settlement in political life, and to expect that is a slightly weird view on life. Do we think that the Conservatives believe that life in England should be settled and that the Labour Party should be in government from here on in, and that Conservatives should accept that they are in opposition? “Settlement” is a slightly strange word to use. You cannot get any settlements in life, because life changes constantly and politics changes constantly. You fight your bit; you win some battles and you lose some, but you keep battling. Mr Paisley Jnr: That is very interesting. The reason that I used the term — [Interruption.] Mr Kennedy: It flows from that that the work of the Ulster Unionist Party and all pro-Union parties is ongoing, and that we continue to want to uphold and maintain our link with the rest of the United Kingdom and reject even the peaceful political aspirations of others who would see us in a united Ireland. A settlement, as Alan said, does not end things. We may view a negotiation, or the end of a negotiation, as a settlement, but the work of maintaining and protecting the link with the rest of the United Kingdom is ongoing for all of us who are committed to it. Mr Paisley Jnr: I will stick with Alan’s answer for the moment. If it were not a settlement, that would be a weird view. In Dean Dodson’s biography, in Frank Millar’s extended interview/biography, and in Henry McDonald’s biography, the former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, who was the principal negotiator of the Belfast Agreement, described it as a settlement. One of the principal obstacles is the question of whether we get a settlement or whether we have a process to something else. That obstacle must be addressed, and I am glad that you have helped us to identify that. Mr McFarland: I want to clarify what I have already said. Issues are settled. The issue of the principle of consent is settled, as is that of articles 2 and 3. We are trying to settle the issue of whether there should be devolved government here. In my view, that issue should be settled because it is in the interests of the parties and of the Union to have devolved government here. Whether politics is settled is another matter. It is clearly not settled whether a majority of the people of Northern Ireland will decide that they wish to join the Irish Republic. The principle of consent allows for that, but I do not believe that that day will ever arise, either demographically or in terms of people’s general will in Northern Ireland. That is not a settlement, and to somehow expect politics to stop and nobody to have any aspirations other than the ones that we hold is not a very sensible approach to life. Mr Paisley Jnr: You believe that the link with the OFMDFM under the Belfast Agreement was a success then? Mr McFarland: It was not a success in that it suffered greatly from personality problems. I am almost certain that if there had been different personalities in there, it would have operated differently. The concept of “jointery”, as with all the safeguards that were negotiated, is necessary because people do not trust each other. Safeguards are necessary; that is the reason for the voting systems in the Assembly — so that people who feel that they are being disadvantaged can get 30 signatures, raise a petition of concern and have a cross-community vote because they are worried that the other team are trying to pull a flanker on an issue. Therefore, the “jointery” of the office is a good idea because it stops any one or other. We have to be slightly careful here, because there is a danger, the DUP might find, that if the Ulster Unionists have a bit of a renaissance and unionism splits fifty-fifty, or more than it is at the moment, that we could have a DUP Deputy First Minister and Martin McGuinness as the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. Our belief is that that safeguard of “jointery” is quite useful. Although it might be attractive to Rev Paisley or Peter Robinson — or whoever the First Minister would be under the current system — to separate that out, if we reach a stage where Sinn Féin is the lead party in Northern Ireland, the DUP may be glad of having some form of “jointery” and control. It is very short-sighted of the DUP to be trying to split these things and to want to operate separate fiefdoms at the top of Government. Mr McNarry: From a practical point of view, it would be worth mentioning the link that Ian mentioned in OFMDFM. It is important — particularly when preparing for government, as this Committee is remitted to do — that we ensure that the Committee has an agenda of which it is fully aware; that is, a political agenda. There is a lesson to learn because there are great contradictions with civil servant interference in the running of OFMDFM — and there was great interference in the running of OFMDFM, to the extent that it was perhaps a major contributory factor to some of the personality clashes that have been alluded to. In preparing for government, the UUP can relate to the DUP in that it, too, is cautious about the civil servants’ agenda and its clear and distinctive methods of trying to interfere, because civil servants in general do not agree with devolution in Northern Ireland. We should all bear that in mind. I will finish by saying that I know that my colleague Alan was being factual, but he was stretching it when he suggested that Martin would be a Prime or First Minister. That would be a terrible thing, and I wish to put that on record. Mr M McGuinness: That would be your worst nightmare. Mr Paisley Jnr: I understand why Mr McNarry wishes to put that on record. I thought he was making an argument about why there should not be an Ulster Unionist Party renaissance. You described the issue of “jointery”, or collective responsibility. If you believe in the principle of collective responsibility, do you agree that colleagues in any Executive should support one another? Mr McFarland: Absolutely. It is key to the success of this enforced coalition that the Executive operates as a sensible entity and that there is agreement before policies go forward. The whole idea of having a Programme for Government is that it is agreed in the Executive and then individual Ministers work out how they do what they do, but the authority for the money and the policy of what they do is agreed by the Executive. That is the way it should operate. Mr Paisley Jnr: You also said that you have strong objections to the changes in the comprehensive agreement. Does the Ulster Unionist Party object to the changes because it does not want to be in government? Mr McFarland: I said that some of the comprehensive agreement is obvious. Everyone is agreed on the ministerial code; the Executive had agreed on it by and large before the Assembly was suspended. My point was that the DUP managed to negotiate some daft outcomes, and it has agreed to some other slightly odd things, such as a North/South parliamentary forum and an all-Ireland civic forum. We managed to stay away from some of those things in the first round of negotiations, and now the DUP seems to have committed everyone to them under this comprehensive agreement, which, as far as we can gather, the Government will give to the DUP in the autumn as some sort of sop for how well it has done, even though the other political parties disagree with some of those outcomes. Mr Paisley Jnr: I turn now to three final issues that have been raised during these discussions. The first goes back to the desirability to be in government with people. If someone believed that a party had made a concerted effort to have them killed in the past two weeks, do you think that it would be amazing if that person wanted to get into government with members of that party, or do you think that it just proves that the allegation is fatuous and wrong? Mr McFarland: I am reluctant to get involved in Ian Paisley Jnr’s court case, so I will pass on the question. Mr Paisley Jnr: You raised the issue of the triple mandate. Perhaps that is not a problem that is going to confront the Ulster Unionist Party for a while. Mr Kennedy: It will be all right in about three or four years’ time. Mr Paisley Jnr: Will you elaborate on the issue of a bill of rights? You said that this was an obstacle. Is that a serious obstacle that has priority in these discussions? 12.15 pm Mr McFarland: No. As I understood it, we were trying to identify areas in the agreement where changes or difficulties have arisen, or may arise. The agreement clearly stated that there should be a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, but that it should include rights specific to Northern Ireland. All human rights already enshrined in law are not specific to Northern Ireland. Therefore, the task was to identify which rights are specific to Northern Ireland. The only one that the UUP came up with was the issue of parading. Recently, the Human Rights Commission, under its previous chief commissioner, was busy trying to empire-build and encouraged a lot of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to get involved in identifying areas that should be included in a bill of rights; health is one such area. There is an ongoing debate about whether socio-economic rights should be included in a bill of rights. For example, if I take ill and my treatment costs £10,000 a day, do I have a right, regardless of cost, to have that treatment? Traditionally, in relation to all socio-economic rights, politicians decided how much money went to each Department and the Minister operated within that budget. If the Minister for Health then decides that it is a priority that I get my £10,000 per day, or whatever it may be, for treatment, that is what I get. However, it is a political choice for the Minister and the Department as to where the money goes. The moment that those become human rights, and, regardless of cost, the Government are obliged to pay for them, first, politics goes out the window. Secondly, no country in the world could operate like that because there is not enough money to pay for that stuff. My point is that there is an issue relating to that bill of rights that the human rights world is trying to push forward. Not only that, but the Human Rights Commission went way beyond its remit by suggesting an examination of a bill of rights for the island of Ireland, and it was considering that. As you are probably aware, about two years ago it suddenly produced an all-Ireland bill of rights for consultation. The question of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland is an outstanding issue within the agreement for Northern Ireland. It is probably a fairly low priority but one that we might need to examine. Mr Paisley Jnr: Thanks, Alan. Mr Ford: My line of questioning will probably not be quite as long as the last. I was slightly baffled by part of the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group’s written paper. Specifically, in the second paragraph, highlighting the fact that the DUP and Sinn Féin are now the majority parties on either side of the divide, it says: “Thus the deal needs to be done between the DUP and Sinn Féin.” The attitude of the SDLP is the same as that of the Alliance Party. We are here with a mandate, regardless of the fact that we are currently the fourth and fifth parties respectively. We are keen to have our say in negotiations and put forward policies that we believe would provide for better governance. Yet that statement suggests that, having witnessed a series of failed side deals in recent times and having been participants in some limited deals in the slightly more distant past, for example in the setting up of the Departments, Ulster Unionists are now effectively saying: “We do not want any part in these negotiations. Over to you.” Will you explain the logic of that, given that you are sitting here and participating? Mr McFarland: The UUP has maintained, from the beginning of the present process, that all parties must be brought into the process. At the beginning, under the agreement, four of the five parties were here. Then, for reasons that seemed sensible at the time, that evolved into the Governments and two parties, the UUP and Sinn Féin, trying to get a deal up and running. At the beginning of this process, we strongly recommended the need to get back to basics, and, since the only success that we had was the agreement, we should attempt to include all the parties in any discussions. That is what is so heartening about this Committee: for the very first time, all the parties are around the table. However, the Government has steadfastly refused to do that. Even when they say: “That is a good idea, we will do that”, you then discover that there is a revolving door at Downing Street with Sinn Féin in the back as the DUP leave the front and vice versa. This is a recognition of the reality of current Government policy on this issue. We disagree with it, but that is the way it is. The point I am trying to make is that if either the DUP or Sinn Féin will not deal, there is no deal. We would be willing to move on with the SDLP etc; the SDLP is not prepared to move on with unionism without Sinn Féin. There is a political reality that if the two main parties do a deal, they have the ability to fire up the Assembly, because only they can do the 50%. If we were on sixty-forty-forty, it would be an entirely different world in getting the Assembly up and running, but the fact of the matter is that Sinn Féin and the DUP hold the cards when it comes to electing a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister, and that is what triggers any form of Government here. If either of them refuses to do the deal, then there is no deal. Mr Ford: And yet, in the face of that, you have not proposed any change to the fifty-fifty-fifty parallel consent rule for electing a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister. You have, in fact, endorsed that. Mr McFarland: Mr Ford knows, because he was involved, that we had discussions about how other systems might be found. However, there was no agreement among the parties to move away from that. I cannot see the two larger parties, who have a veto in that regard, agreeing to move away from that. Mr Ford: But you are not even making the case for that, never mind the fact that you think others might not agree on it. Mr McFarland: As I said to Ian Junior, we have not actually got into negotiations yet. Mr Ford: I am sorry, but you have not highlighted that in your paper as an issue that you think might merit change. Mr McFarland: It has not been a priority in terms of getting stuff fired up, but if we want to go into negotiations and be persuaded that we should move away, and we can persuade the other parties, then we would not have any particular objections to trying to do that. Mr Ford: I should have perhaps clarified that before, although what you have said is slightly at variance with what is in your paper. The UUPAG is a coalition — I prefer not to use the term that Ian Paisley Jnr used earlier of an alliance between two parties. In his previous guise when attending some of these meetings on his own, David Ervine would have made a case broadly similar to the one that I am making for involvement of all. I take it that your submission is on behalf of both wings of your coalition? Mr Kennedy: It is on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group. Mr Ford: Both wings? Mr Kennedy: It is on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group. Mr McNarry: There are no wings. We only have legs. Mr Ford: I see. So we are now a single body. That is interesting. Mr McFarland: That is what it says. We have to be, in order to operate. Mr Ford: OK. Going on to your verbal presentation, you talked a lot at the beginning about matters of policing and criminality, and of the lack of confidence that unionists have in republicans — a concern that has been well highlighted by other parties around this table. Is there not also a case that other people need to be providing confidence to the wider community — indeed, to decent people who may vote for parties other than the UUPAG? In the light of your current UUPAG coalition in this place, and of the arrangements between one section of that party and the Ulster Political Research Group (UPRG) in Belfast City Hall — which extend to the nomination of a UPRG member onto the Belfast DPP as an Ulster Unionist; in the light of the withdrawal of Ulster Unionist members from the Belfast DPP while participating in bodies such as the North and West Belfast Parades Forum; in the light of your party leader’s comments after the Whiterock riots last September, which appeared to blame the police and the Parades Commission rather than the UVF, who fired shots at policemen; what can the Ulster Unionist Party do to provide confidence to other people in your position on respect for the rule of law? Mr McFarland: When the leader of our party first took on his task he said that we would attempt to help loyalist paramilitaries to get off the necks of their communities and go out of business. That is sensible because it is easier for us to attempt it than for the SDLP or Sinn Féin — although it would be easier if the DUP joined in. There is a sort of preciousness about dealing with people who are associated with paramilitaries. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Alliance Party represented David Ervine and Billy Hutchinson on the Assembly Commission all the way through the first Assembly. I saw no great neuralgia from your party then about whether it should represent David Ervine and Billy Hutchinson on that body. The DUP and the Ulster Unionists have been in groupings for at least 13 years, if not longer, in Belfast City Council with the PUP, the then Ulster Democratic Party (UDP), and the UPRG. That is practical politics. There is nothing unusual in that. Republican paramilitaries are leaving the stage. What is new is our attempt to engage with loyalist paramilitaries to persuade them that, as they claim to exist only as a reaction to republican paramilitaries, they should now stand down. It is sensible for us to try to make that happen. Mrs D Dodds: May I offer a point of information? The DUP in Belfast City Council has no alliance with any other party or coalition. Mr Kennedy: I understand that for several years an informal arrangement has existed to allow representatives of parties such as the PUP to be elected as lord mayor and to other senior offices. That has been done with the assistance of the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party. The arrangement was entered into enthusiastically and has continued almost unabated. A degree of co-operation has been extended from both the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party to groupings such as the PUP, the UPRG and the former UDP. Mr McFarland: Recently — and this was in the newspapers, so it is no secret — the DUP did a deal with a senior member of the UPRG so that he could be deputy mayor of Newtownabbey Borough Council. However, when this issue arose in the Assembly the DUP suddenly told the chap that it would no longer support him. There is much pretending that nobody ever had anything to do with paramilitaries. We could go into the history of the DUP with up hills, down dales and third forces if we wished to. Mr Ford: I hoped that in this session we could explore the attitude of the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group to building confidence, rather than the history of the DUP. Mr Kennedy: Or the history of the Alliance Party in electing the first Sinn Féin lord mayor to Belfast City Council. Mr Ford: However, the Ulster Unionists seem determined — Mr Kennedy: We can explore that — The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let Mr Ford answer. Mr Kennedy: We can explore that, Mr Ford. Mr Ford: Since — Mr Kennedy: And your virtuous record on those matters. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Please do not be disorderly. 12.30 pm Mr Ford: I notice, Mr Chairman, that Ulster Unionist Members had little to ask about such matters when I was answering questions. However, if they are in some difficulty, I will happily take that opportunity now. The matters of who sat on the Commission and the limited number of places on it — there were certainly people who regarded themselves as not being represented by Eileen Bell in the first mandate, even though they were Members of parties other than the largest four — are issues of the practical realities of life in this place. That is entirely different from forming a coalition as a voluntary activity. Mr McFarland: The practical realities of life in this place. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Ulster Unionists have been very disruptive today, have they not? Mr Ford: We have noticed. Mr Kennedy: Mr Chairman, I am not sure who is now answering the questions. That is all I would say. Mr Ford: In the context of Belfast City Council, I have no doubt that the DUP and Ulster Unionists will continue to have a spat over the years as to what exactly they did or did not do. I can certainly place on record that the Alliance Party did not vote for any member of the PUP to be lord mayor of Belfast a few weeks before the Loughinisland massacre. We did not vote for any member of the UDP/UPRG to be deputy lord mayor of Belfast in order that he could appear at an eleventh-night platform with armed and masked men. We did vote for Alex Maskey to be lord mayor at a time when Sinn Féin Members were serving as Ministers in this place, and at a time when there was a change in atmosphere following acts of decommissioning and a cessation of violence by Sinn Féin. If people cannot tell the difference between the Alliance Party’s encouragement of people when positive changes are being made, and those who seem to be determined to get into bed with others at a time when their friends are still actively engaged in violence, they do not understand much about what is going on here. Mr Kennedy: What was the question? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Because there is no question at this stage, it might be a good time to take our 12.30 pm break. Perhaps people will come back refreshed. That will be a 15-minute break. Food will be available in the room. Mr O’Dowd: Mr Chairman, I am sure that, in his comments, Mr Ford meant to refer to the IRA, rather than Sinn Féin. I am sure that he will be happy to correct that for the record. He spoke about a cessation of violence by Sinn Féin. Mr Ford: I apologise. I would appreciate it if the record could reflect that. Mr O’Dowd: Thank you. The Committee was suspended at 12.32 pm. On resuming — 12.54 pm (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I remind members to switch off their mobile phones. Mr Ford: I am a little confused about this coalition between the UUP and the PUP. I took from the presentation that this was part of an attempt to bring loyalists in from the cold. Later, in answer to Ian Paisley, we had a lengthy discourse on the application of the d’Hondt system, if one or two numbers changed. He asked if other Members had been approached, in particular Mr Robert McCartney. Will the Ulster Unionists explain whether the principal purpose of the deal with the PUP is to bring loyalists in from the cold, thereby providing confidence, which will make life easier for all of us to progress, or is it just a cunning plan on numbers? The fact that there seemed to be an admission that the UUP approached other people suggests that it was not so much to do with bringing loyalists in from the cold as simply a cunning plan to do down the DUP or Sinn Féin in terms of ministerial seats. Mr McFarland: You will appreciate that it is both. For nearly a year there has been an ongoing attempt to engage with loyalist paramilitaries to help them follow a peaceful path and to get rid of their weapons. I explained earlier how the other issue arose. The idea was that we would form an Assembly grouping, as we could under Standing Orders, for the purpose of operating inside the Assembly. I do not want to get into whether we approached members of the Alliance Party, the DUP or indeed the SDLP. Mr Ford: Sinn Féin? Mr McFarland: We did not approach Sinn Féin — or Mr Berry, although not for the obvious reasons. As an MLA for Newry and Armagh, Danny will confirm — The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I remind members of limited privilege in relation to this meeting. Mr Kennedy: That is sensible, Chairman. Mr McNarry: Are we allowed to disclose those who approached us? Mr O’Dowd: Is Sinn Féin on the list? Mr McFarland: My point is that that is a two-phase operation. The first phase is a tactical move concerning our representation and the representation of unionism in the Assembly. The second one is an ongoing issue with the loyalist paramilitaries and the wider community. Those two are not incompatible. Mr Ford: They are not perhaps incompatible, but they do not seem totally congruent. However, I notice with interest that you did not approach Mr Berry or any member of Sinn Féin, but appear not to deny that you approached the SDLP, the Alliance Party or Mr McCartney. I should put on record that they did not approach me; I think that they know what they would have heard if they had. Mr Kennedy: We probably did. Mr Ford: As well as the direct issues of policing, you talked a fair bit about criminality. Again, it was criminality in the context of activities by republicans, former republicans, republicans acting officially and republicans acting individually. The IMC, which the UUP claims credit for, although I can place on record that the body we now have is closer to the idea that we put forward than the one that your former leader put forward — Mr Kennedy: That is very modest of you. Mr Ford: The IMC, however, has made a fair bit in recent reports of the activities and criminality on the part of various loyalists. I remember that on a few occasions recently when the police carried out actions against organised crime in loyalist areas, Ulster Unionist MLAs — that particular wing of your coalition — raised objections to the behaviour of police officers of a kind that I have never heard them raise when the police carried out similar operations against criminality in perceived republican areas. Could you explain what the difference is, if we are trying to build confidence? Mr McFarland: Our policy is quite clear: we are against any criminality. Individual members of the party, as in your party and other parties, have views on all sorts of things that pertain to themselves. I do not want to get into that. Our policy is quite clear on law and order. Our policy has also been to attempt to persuade loyalist paramilitaries to follow a peaceful, constitutional path. That has been ongoing for some time. Everything that we do is in keeping with trying to make that happen. Our view is that it is timely; it needs to happen; and it needs to happen in as fast a timescale as can be managed. We have made it clear that we expect some sort of movement on those issues. That is all that we can do. We do not have a paramilitary wing of our own. All we can do is encourage others to follow a peaceful path. That seems to be a sensible thing to do, although you may disagree. 1.00 pm Mr Kennedy: It is also worth noting — and it is a fact of life — that, in political terms, greater emphasis has been placed on these issues because of Sinn Féin’s electoral mandate, which is substantially greater than the mandate of any loyalist political party. Those important implications must be considered in respect of the formation of an Executive. I do not want to underestimate or dismiss those issues, but they do arise when considering loyalist paramilitaries and their political parties. Mr Ford: This is not a question. However, I wish to place on record my view that if more than one party or grouping around this table has perceived links to organisations that have been, and may still be, engaged in paramilitary activity — that may not necessarily be the case any longer, although it may have been the case a few weeks ago — that such concerns could apply only to Sinn Féin because of perceived links, in the past and possibly in the present, to the IRA. My question was not about republican criminality. If, as Alan says, the UUP fully supports the rule of law, how does that stance reassure the wider community when individual MLAs, without any apparent sanction, discipline or comment from the party leadership, criticise police actions against criminality in loyalist areas? A party that supports the rule of law supports the police in upholding the law, whatever the area. Mr Kennedy: Mr Chairman, how relevant is that question to scoping the issues, for which this Committee has been designed? From Mr Ford’s point of view, we would be incapable of giving him a satisfactory answer. We have stated the party’s position on illegal activity, criminality, and so forth: such activities are unacceptable. However, we are in a real situation in which sections of loyalism must be brought forward into an exclusively democratic future. We are prepared, and we are engaged in that work. Some people may criticise us; some people may be virtuous and others may be hypocritical. Nevertheless, we are engaged in that work. There will be difficulties; it is not an easy situation. However, we are determined to play our part so that progress can be made. Mr McFarland: The Police Ombudsman investigates individual police officers whose behaviour has not been up to scratch, as you know. I am not clear on what you are referring to; I presume it is individual people. They presumably have issues with individual police officers. There is a system, through the Police Ombudsman, to deal with those. That is the way that they should be dealt with. I do not know whether you are suggesting that we have masses of people who are somehow out criticising the police, or police actions, in an unwarranted way. Is that what you are suggesting? Mr Ford: I certainly have a memory of that. There seems to be a query about whether it is valid to ask such questions. If you are questioning other parties about their responsibility to provide confidence, you have a duty to answer how you are providing confidence to the wider community. When the police take action against people with paramilitary links, and the activities of local representatives are perceived as defending the interests of those people, that is not how you provide confidence to the wider community that you see policing as an impartial activity directed against all crime. It suggests that those who believe that the police service is serving the interests of only one section of the community are right. Mr Kennedy: You have given your subjective opinion. Any objective observer of the Ulster Unionist Party will confirm that it is a party that believes strongly in law and order and in law enforcement. We support those principles. Mr McFarland: We have a duty to provide confidence, which we are attempting to do. We are attempting to help loyalist paramilitaries to move off the stage, just as it could be argued that we have spent the past seven years or so attempting to help republican paramilitaries to move off the stage. They did not particularly want to — they did not want to decommission, but we hassled them into that eventually. It could be argued that that is a good thing, because the fact that they are no longer a fully armed organisation has undoubtedly increased confidence. We discussed that earlier. We are attempting to encourage loyalist paramilitaries to follow a similar path. If they can be persuaded to stand down, that should lead to increased confidence in the community. Mr Ford: If I heard you correctly, you appeared to suggest that the only significant issue that might be included in a bill of rights for Northern Ireland is the right to parade. What about the right not to have a parade imposed on you? Mr McNarry: There is no such right. Mr McFarland: My point was that the agreement says that a bill of rights for Northern Ireland should include rights that are exclusive to Northern Ireland. We have identified the parading issue as an issue that should be included in a bill of rights, because freedom of association and the freedom to process along a public highway are inherent in the British way of life. The other point that I was trying to make was that all the other issues that the human rights industry is attempting to insert as being exclusive to Northern Ireland should not be included. Mr Ford: I heard that. That is not a problem. My issue is with the parading aspect. Mr McFarland: That is our take on it. You may have another take on it. Mr Ford: Your take is that the parading issue must be included in a bill of rights. Mr McNarry’s take is that there is no right to not have a parade imposed on you, so perhaps — Mr McFarland: People have a right to protest against a parade, but people also have a right to walk along roads. If it is said that we do not have a right to walk along roads peacefully, we get into all sorts of issues concerning people’s freedoms. Mr Ford: I suspect that we have already got into those issues. Mr McNarry: If society in Northern Ireland can accommodate peaceful protest, there will always be peaceful walks. That goes without saying. No one can dismiss the fact that one section of the community that walks is targeted by another section for political reasons, to agitate and to cause community division. Other organisations walk without interference in Northern Ireland. Does Mr Ford suggest that we adopt — as the Parades Commission has done — a rioters’ or protesters’ charter, and that we all sign up to it? Does he suggest that, when people are attending sporting activities, other people should protest and block the roads? Does he suggest that when people are going about their walks in August, other people should protest against them? Is he suggesting that somehow there is a right to have a territorial claim? On this morning’s Radio Ulster news we heard people who were adamant in making the claim that an area was a “nationalist area”. Does that presuppose that non-nationalists have no right to go into nationalist areas? Where does it end? The culture that I enjoy accepts that there are basic rights and freedoms for everyone. There is no right to protest that takes precedence over the right to walk. Two rights do not make a wrong, but perhaps Mr Ford and others could see their way to understanding that there would be no confrontation in our communities if people adopted peaceful protest, which they have been asked to do for years upon years. Mr Ford: I am not sure that I am here to answer questions. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I was going to allow Seán Farren to speak. Dr Farren: If you allow me an intervention, Chairman, it will obviate my having to return to the parades issue in relation to a bill of rights. I wanted the UUP to clarify the accuracy of what seems a very narrow interpretation of what the Good Friday Agreement provides in respect of a bill of rights. As I read it, the agreement states that: “The new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission … will be invited to consult and to advise on the scope of defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, drawing as appropriate on international instruments and experience.” From what is suggested in that paragraph and the following paragraph, in the section entitled ‘Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity’, it cannot be distilled that the only issues that need to be identified and agreed would relate to the right to parade. The agreement allows for more than the Ulster Unionist Party seems to suggest. As that had occurred to me, and given what has been said, I thought that it might be more helpful to put the point at this stage, so that it is encompassed in the exchange between Mr Ford and Alan McFarland. Mr McFarland: We can have whatever rights that we think should be in a bill of rights — they are not limited to parading. There is an entire raft of human rights legislation on the Westminster statute books that reflects European Acts on those issues. What the Good Friday Agreement allowed for, as we understood it at the time, was to include in a bill of rights for Northern Ireland rights that are specific to Northern Ireland. I cannot remember the quote. Dr Farren: It is: “to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, drawing as appropriate on international instruments and experience.” It goes on to elaborate on that. Mr McFarland: What are the issues specific to Northern Ireland — and not to the rest of the United Kingdom — that require a bill of rights? Clearly, socio-economic rights need to be the same. Whether that is on an all-island basis or within the United Kingdom, all those issues are in place. There are certain rights that people would like, but that would interfere with the political governance of the Assembly. We must take care not to remove political choice on how money is divided. To hand that over as a right would be to cede control over how much things will cost. There is no point in bankrupting the country by giving people rights to A, B, C or D in a bill of rights. To me, the only issue that is specific to Northern Ireland as distinct from the rest of the UK or anywhere else is parades. The SDLP may be able to identify others that are specific and should be included in a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. 1.15 pm Dr Farren: I thank David Ford for allowing me to intervene. As in some of the exchanges that you had earlier on with Ian, we are now debating an issue of concern that a party has raised that needs to be addressed. I am happy to answer some of your points. If we are still at the stage of identifying the issues, let us finish with that and then decide how we are going to deal with the matters that we have identified. It is useful to have that as an item on the agenda. Whether or not resolving it is essential to restoration is another matter that would have to be discussed and agreed or otherwise. Thank you very much. Mr Ford: Séan has wrapped up the bill of rights point, but I hope that we will come back to it. You referred to dual mandates. I might personally not be particularly happy that, although he was then the sitting MP, David Burnside was also elected as a MLA for South Antrim in November 2003. I might be further unhappy that, having been elected as MLA for Mid Ulster in November 2003, William McCrea was elected as MP for South Antrim last year. However, that was the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box. What particular thoughts have you about the legal prevention of dual, triple or quadruple mandates? You highlighted the experience in Scotland, where it was political and media pressure rather than formal legislation that stopped the dual mandate. Mr McFarland: There has been, and there is, no guarantee that the Assembly will be restored in six months’ time, so those with double or triple mandates would not want to change them at this time. For nearly eight years many of us round this table have been unsure of whether we would have a job in two or three months’ time. It is understandable that people would not want to bail out of being a MP or councillor while there is any doubt. Those who served in the first Assembly will know that two days of plenary work, two days of Committee work and a day in the constituency is quite a workload, if the Assembly is working properly. In the first Assembly, Committee members from the west of the Province would suddenly bail out at 5.00 pm in the middle of a fairly key debate on health, for instance, because they had to return to attend a council meeting at 7.00 pm. The quality of effort in the Committee was diluted because swathes of people kept leaving all the time, and I stress that this was while the Assembly was running properly. Similarly, if you are here for four days a week and you spend one day in the constituency, how can you operate as a fully working Member of Parliament at Westminster? It does not make sense. The Scots foresaw this, and individual Scottish MSPs were not particularly keen, but the media raised a hue and cry about how they could be at Westminster and in Edinburgh at the same time. Under that pressure, it became embarrassing for people to be claiming two salaries and to be in both places at the same time. The result was that the Scottish Parliament decided that it was not very sensible to have people with dual mandates. The Government have decided in the Review of Public Administration that they are going to legislate against people being members of the new council system — whether there are seven or twelve or fifteen or whatever — and a MLA. That makes sense, because we are likely to end up with full-time councillors, who will be well paid and will have extra duties. How can someone be here giving full value and also be at a council? Indeed, we have people with triple mandates. How can someone be in a council chamber doing full-time work in a new super council; here giving his best; and at Westminster giving his best? Although it is nice to have high-profile, well-known people within a party snaffling up all these positions and guaranteeing to get votes, it is politically unhealthy within parties and in Northern Ireland. The Assembly needs to give some thought to this. Clearly we cannot force this unless we legislate, and perhaps we should not be legislating. However, if the Assembly were restored, it would be hard to justify pulling in a Westminster salary and allowances when one is — or should be — here full time. Mr Ford: I should, perhaps, have declared my interest as somebody who stepped down from Antrim Borough Council in 2001 to concentrate on the Assembly, but who, last year, felt the obligation to seek a renewed mandate because of the circumstances in the Assembly. I agree to a considerable extent with the view that Mr McFarland outlined, but I am not quite sure how it fits legislatively, as opposed to individual’s decisions. Mr McFarland: How we achieve that is an issue for the famous negotiations, when they get going. All we are doing is outlining issues. I have several other issues, including the standing of MLAs, to introduce later. To give you a flavour: Ministers and Government at Westminster are accessed through MPs, whereas during the first Assembly, people would phone up Departments and be allowed to take a delegation to meet a Minister. The result of that practice was that MLAs became irrelevant, and we began to be treated as being irrelevant. If the public could go straight to Ministers, MLAs had nothing that they needed. Therefore, although it is not on the list, when the Assembly gets up and running, we should, perhaps, adopt a system similar to that in Westminster. Constituents in England write to their MPs to get access to Government and make things happen. If that practice were adopted here, MLAs’ jobs would become important because they could produce the goods. Mr Ford: The UUP presentation referred quite a bit to greater collectivity in the Executive. We are all agreed on the ministerial code of conduct, so I do not want to go down that route. Emphasis was placed on the Programme for Government as something to produce collectivity, and mention was made of having power vested in the Assembly rather than in individual Departments, which is an advantage that our Scottish and Welsh colleagues have over us. I agree with that issue. I want to tease out the specific issue of a collective vote to endorse the Executive. The Executive should operate with greater collectivity than previously, but why would anybody want to be part of an Executive to which they were not prepared to give a vote of confidence? Mr McFarland: My thinking is connected to the posts of First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Suppose, for example, that we decided that we had reservations so strong to Martin McGuinness’s being the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland that we, or the DUP, objected to his appointment. Under the present rule, due to the joint-ticket requirement, it would not happen. However, the amazing negotiations of the DUP have separated this issue out under the comprehensive agreement, so that nationalists vote for the Deputy First Minister and unionists vote for the First Minister. In fact, there is no need for them to worry because the candidates’ own parties just need to vote for them under the 50% rule. Therefore, Sinn Féin would vote for Martin McGuinness and the DUP would vote for Ian Paisley. It does not matter whether all the parties think that Ian Paisley would not be a good First Minister, or that we object to Martin McGuinness as Deputy First Minister. None of that would matter because Sinn Féin would get to choose the Deputy First Minister. If Members object to the appointments at that stage, having a wrap-up vote would mean that they would nevertheless be endorsing Martin McGuinness as Deputy First Minister, having been denied the ability to have a say in whether he should be. I am sorry to personalise this, but the appointment of Martin McGuinness is the easiest scenario to understand. The UUP’s understanding is that if we did have an objection, and we felt strongly enough to refuse to vote, we would be chucked out of the Executive for the four-year term of the Assembly. Similarly, if the SDLP had an objection, either to the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister, it would be chucked out as well. From what I can gather, one of the nightmare scenarios for the DUP is being left in Government with Sinn Féin, with the rest of us in opposition. The DUP’s outstanding piece of negotiation has led to the removal of any say in who should be First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and to those parties that feel unable to vote for the Executive in the round being chucked out from any ministerial responsibility. Mr Ford: If you have serious objections to — since we are personalising it — Martin McGuinness as Deputy First Minister or Ian Paisley as First Minister, why would you want to be in an Executive with them anyway? Mr McFarland: Under the current system, if we could agree on a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister — though one might take issue with individuals whom the parties have put forward — the system is such that we are entitled, in the same way as the SDLP, to a number of ministerial positions. We have a right to those. The way in which the system operated before meant that all of us had a say in who became the First Minister and who became the Deputy First Minister. The DUP could object to the joint ticket and it would not happen. After that, there was no collective vote — that was the only vote we had. After that, we all had our rightful positions and we took them. Under the comprehensive agreement, not only is any say in who should be First Minister and Deputy First Minister gone, as regards cross-community agreement, but the moment any of us object to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, we are thrown out. That is daft. Mr Ford: Yes, but I am not asking — Mr Kennedy: One of the difficulties of the previous Executive was that the four parties that it comprised were facing different ways on all sorts of different issues, and there was little or no collective responsibility on any of the issues that were brought forward. Presumably, the ultimate desire in the formation of any new Executive would be for some kind of shared responsibility to be created. Personally, I think that we are some considerable way off that, even in this Committee. However, that must ultimately be the desired outcome of any Executive, because it would be more beneficial for our citizens. We must look carefully at the experience of the last Executive and see how best that can be improved, but our early assumption is that it will not be very easy to achieve the form of collective responsibility that exists in all other Governments. Perhaps the method of forming those Administrations is somewhat different from the convoluted method that we have arrived at. Nevertheless, shared responsibility leading to a shared future is, presumably, what we ultimately seek. Mr McNarry: David Ford’s point is a good one. The more it is teased out and discussed, the better. It is important that we do not reach a situation again in which a party is half in the Executive or half out of it. We want all people to be committed to being in it, if that is their choice. I can also see a reason why my party might take the decision not to go into an Executive. That decision — and it would be open to any party — would probably be based on the progress made by this Committee in working through a Programme for Government. Somewhere along the line, preparation for Government must surely throw up a Programme for Government. One of the failures of the last Executive was that they did not devote sufficient time to agreeing measures before going into Government. I remember from my experience in the First Minister’s Office that they were bedevilled by problems. 1.30 pm I remember David Ford legitimately criticising the inability of Bills to come through. That was because the Executive were starting from scratch and had not worked out any measures or programmes or agreements. They did not know what was a hot potato and what was not. There is a lesson to be learned, and that is the validity of David Ford’s point. I am pleased that he has raised it so that it can be teased out now, and we can bear it in mind when we make future preparations. One can go in with the best will in the world with all the relevant papers, but the mechanics do not always go according to plan. On many occasions, I was driving down Massey Avenue at 9.00 pm, and Mark Durkan phoned to say that there were two words in the third paragraph of a Bill that he did not like, and we would have had to drive back and sit for another three hours to work out two words. That is the nonsense of it all, and more professionalism must be addressed to it. Before the UUP acquiesces to going into Government, I would like to know the bulk of measures that we would attempt to put through in the lifetime of the Assembly. Mr Ford: I am unsure if that is my point entirely answered but, on the harmony of the past few minutes, I will finish at this point. Dr Farren: I will pose a few questions that I hope will be quickly answered. The SDLP would like to take the questions as a group if that is OK. First, I understand from your presentation — and correct me if I am wrong — that the Ulster Unionist Party believes that the Good Friday Agreement remains the basis for the framework within which we must move forward, and that all the relevant parties must agree to any modifications to its operation. By parties, I mean both Governments, where both are involved, and all political parties. Mr McFarland: The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Belfast Agreement/Good Friday Agreement is the only game in town. If one considers the comprehensive agreement that the DUP negotiated, it is clearly the Belfast Agreement with a few modifications. Some of those modifications make a great deal of sense, because there are things that we need to improve upon. However, other modifications have been made to protect the embarrassment of the DUP from sticking up its hands to vote for Martin McGuinness. That is the name of the game, and whatever deal shuffles out of this will be on that basis. The UUP’s view has been that these things are much stronger if all the parties are brought into it, but, at various stages, other parties have been left out of this equation. Looking back now, it was the way that it was at the time, but it was not necessarily the most sensible way forward. The Governments spent a couple of years negotiating directly with the UUP and Sinn Féin, but that has now changed to the DUP and Sinn Féin. That is still unhealthy, as any deal that comes out of this would be much stronger if all the parties round this table were involved and comfortable with it. To use an old cliché, we will not all get what we want. The question is: what can we produce to get a Government up and running here that we can all live with? Dr Farren: Would it follow, therefore, from what you have said, that you would join with the SDLP and others who might take exception to what Mr Hanson said in the House of Commons some weeks ago about the DUP having a mandate that required that the changes that they were seeking would have to be granted? I hope that I am paraphrasing him correctly, rather than quoting his words. To allow that would be, in effect, to concede to the more exclusive bilateral approach that the DUP seems to prefer and that other parties have used in the past. Mr McFarland: Recent dealings have smacked of the Government going out of their way, in all sorts of ways, to hug the DUP, presumably in an effort to persuade it to go into Government with Sinn Féin. It strikes me that the comprehensive agreement in November 2004 was supposedly between the DUP, Sinn Féin and the Governments. Sinn Féin has told us that it is no longer wedded to that document, that it was of its time and that time has moved on. The DUP tells us that it is wedded to that document. Indeed it is so wedded that the Government, as we understand it from Mr Hanson, proposes to reward the DUP for doing the deal with Sinn Féin. My problem with that is that a number of issues in the comprehensive agreement are plain wrong-headed. Some are sensible and, with a bit of tweaking, we could all support them. For example, there is a ministerial code that, with a few modifications, all parties around this table could support today or tomorrow. However, my sense is that we will not get the DUP to agree to anything like that, because it thinks that it will get its sweeties in the autumn, for which it will be able to claim credit if and when it does the deal with Sinn Féin. That is not a healthy way for politics to operate. We should attempt to get all parties to buy in to whatever it is that is being proposed for the autumn. Dr Farren: Does it also follow, from what you have just said, that it is important for the two Prime Ministers, who will be here tomorrow, to make it clear that the Committee has work to do to a timetable over the next few weeks that would contribute to the discussions and negotiations that would re-emerge with greater intensity in the autumn? If the Governments urge us to continue to work here in that context, we should welcome that. Mr McFarland: I am on record as saying that the Committee, and the engagement between parties around this table over the last three weeks, is probably one of the most useful things that the Assembly has done. It is positive and necessary. The question is what we do with that. Clearly, there are issues over which most of the parties here have no control, such as paramilitarism. Only Sinn Féin can deal with policing. Having explained that we are all anxious about policing and have urged Sinn Féin to deal with it, that is all that the other four parties can do. It could be argued that until Sinn Féin deals with policing, there is not much else to be said, other than to remind Sinn Féin that it must deal with that issue. However, other issues, in which we all have a vested interest, are common to all five parties. Although the UUP has put down common issues as a heading on the agenda, it is not at all clear whether we have examined all the issues within the overall topics. It strikes me that there may well be work to do, not negotiating or whatever, but in trying to hone down or define more clearly exactly what the individual issues are within the broad band of issues raised by various parties. Having listened to almost everyone now, and I know what was in the UUP submission, we may reach a stage, later today or whenever, when we need to consider whether there are topics from which it is not clear whether we have mined all the issues that need to be addressed. It strikes me that there may well be extra work. I have serious reservations about the idea of this Committee shuffling on over the summer. People already have holidays booked. The Committee has been successful in that we have maintained a fair degree of integrity among the party teams; there has not been an enormous turnover of personnel. The danger in the summer is that we would end up with people who have not been here for the first three weeks, and whose lack of knowledge of the issues that have been discussed so far could lead to confusion. Perhaps we will get round to discussing how to deal with all of that later. Dr Farren: Do you agree with the SDLP that there are issues that are essential to restoration, and that those issues may well be outside the direct influence of the parties in this room, and, indeed, of the Government, to progress? That is not to say that influence of some kind could not be brought to bear. There are other issues, which we have generally labelled review issues, such as policing and justice, and what might compose a Programme for Government. All of that could well be progressed, and some issues might be resolved before 24 November. Others might not have that resolution and would be work in progress beyond that date, but that should not impede restoration. Mr McFarland: By the end of today, we will have heard all the submissions. It would be useful for the Committee to clear its mind on which issues are within its ability to solve, and perhaps to prioritise the issues that need to be dealt with first, ahead of those that can be left. All the matters raised have some problem or other attached to them. Where they are put in the pecking order, and how we prioritise them publicly, is a matter for discussion among the parties around the table. We could then recommend a take-note debate, perhaps, or the formation of a subcommittee, to complete our work. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) Dr Farren: We seem to be agreeing on quite a bit; it might be dangerous to continue too far too fast along that track. I want to come back to the issue that was raised by several members, which is the UUP’s relationship with the PUP, and put it in a way that has not been expressed before. As a party member and personally, I engaged with Sinn Féin at a time when IRA violence was continuing at a considerable level of intensity. We took much criticism for that at the time. There was a clear principle that we would not sacrifice, which was that as long as Sinn Féin continued to be associated with an organisation involved in violence, there could not be anything resembling a joint approach on certain issues. 1.45 pm I well remember the invitation being extended to us in 1998 to join with Sinn Féin on the equality agenda, as it might be described, to which we firmly said no. More generally, there was an invitation to join Sinn Féin on an international campaign on self-determination, as it was described, and, again, we said no. We stood by the principle that we could not embark on campaigns, or on any kind of broadly political joint activity, as long as Sinn Féin was associated with an organisation that was engaged in violence. That did not stop us engaging in lengthy meetings with senior members of Sinn Féin to impress on them the case for ending violence and to argue that no progress on any issue, whether self-determination or equality, could be expected to be made as long as an armed campaign continued. What can you point to in your new relationship with the PUP that would give any confidence that loyalist street violence, which can be more intense at some times than at others, and the criminality in which loyalist paramilitaries are well known to be involved, will end? What effect is your influence having? Despite their reservations, people might adopt a less hostile attitude towards your engagement with the leader of the PUP if something positive on loyalist criminality and paramilitarism came out of it. Mr McFarland: It is no secret that my party leader has said that he has been engaging with those who claim to be involved with loyalist paramilitaries. I am confident, as a result of those meetings, that there is an intention on their part to deal with the issues that must be dealt with. They will do it in their own timescale, because they are unlikely to want to be seen to do anything as a result of a political party wagging a finger at them. We have explained to them that such engagement has been difficult for us — as it clearly has, for there are moral issues involved — but that we believe that it is worth doing. We understand that loyalist paramilitaries wish to come in from the cold. I expect that IMC reports later in the year will reflect a change in the behaviour of loyalist paramilitaries. Until that happens, I cannot show you any proof. However, we have explained our position as to what we are doing and why. It has been suggested to us that loyalist paramilitaries support what we are trying to do and that there will be a positive response from them. We have been at this since 1997 with Sinn Féin and the republican movement, and that took a very long time. I have no idea how long this will take, but we have explained that the sooner it happens, the better. If there should be a deal in the autumn between the DUP and Sinn Féin, it would be ridiculous for loyalist paramilitaries to be still involved in paramilitary activity. The only people who can deal with this are those directly involved in it. Dr Farren: There are several questions that follow from that. You are saying that, as yet, there is no evidence to which you can point in public so that people might have more confidence that your influence is having the desired effect. I am prepared to accept the bona fides of your attempts to influence loyalist paramilitaries, particularly those associated with the PUP. However, if the next IMC report does not signal movement in the direction that you hope — and perhaps I am boxing you into a corner by asking you this question — will it not at least be necessary for you to raise questions and to reassure the public? Indeed, throughout this period, criticisms should not be muted. Again, I can only refer back to our experience in the SDLP. Our criticism was not muted during the period of our talks, contacts and engagement with the leadership of Sinn Féin. That criticism was as trenchant as we thought necessary, depending on the events that took place. It would be important to have some sense as to how long we can wait before you draw a fairly definitive answer or conclusion on what the UVF and those other paramilitaries are doing. I find it very difficult, even in paramilitary terms, to accept that they have any case whatsoever, given what has happened on the IRA side, for persisting with paramilitary activity. Have you any understanding from your contacts as to what justification they can possibly offer? I know that there are several questions in those comments. Mr McFarland: Let me try to answer them. Clearly, if we get another IMC report that shows no change, life will be extremely difficult for us. I am confident that that will not be the case. It is no secret that Mr McNarry has been engaging with loyalism for several years, and has been doing a good job. There is some evidence from the North and West Belfast Parades Forum, in which we are heavily operational, and from background dealings with other parties, of attempts to make the walking season as peaceful as possible. We believe that that is in everyone’s interest. There has been a response from paramilitaries on both sides to those efforts in north and west Belfast. However, a needless complication has arisen. In one of our first meetings with the Secretary of State, he mentioned deadlines — in particular, a deadline of 24 November. We drew to his attention the serious danger of that deadline, but he went ahead and announced it. He said that if there were no Government here by 24 November, the two Governments would move into what they are terming “joint management”, but is actually joint authority in Northern Ireland. If you were a loyalist paramilitary, you might assume that, on 24 November, we will all be sold down the river, and the Dublin hordes will come for us. That, despite our warning, is what has happened. The paramilitaries have now said, wrongly in my view, that they will do nothing by way of disarming until 24 November because, on that date, Northern Ireland could be sold out. That is daft stuff on one level, but it is unsurprising on another. We warned the Secretary of State not to say that we would be sold out to the Irish Government with joint authority for Northern Ireland on 24 November because it would lead to that reaction from the loyalist paramilitaries. He would not listen, and we have seen that reaction. In that climate, we are trying to say to them: “Listen, it’s not as bad as that. We think that there will be an accommodation with a bit of good will, and we need to get on the road to dealing with weapons and getting all the paramilitary activity stopped and off the radar completely.” We will know whether that has been successful when the next IMC report is published. That will be the first check mark, when we will know whether our efforts, which were not helped by the Secretary of State’s threat that we would all be sold out on 24 November, have reaped some reward. Dr Farren: The phrase that the two Governments used, echoed by the Secretary of State, was “joint stewardship”. That seems to be the weakest form of relationship that they could have gone for. They did not use words such as “joint authority”. There is some understanding in international politics — Mr McFarland: If one is already paranoid about the intentions of others, particularly in the light of the British Government’s treatment of us recently — and certainly the Irish Government’s — the terms “joint management”, “joint stewardship” or “joint authority” all get lost in the smoke. Dr Farren: Perhaps. However, it begs the question: what has the PUP — and I know the party is not here to speak for itself — been doing over the last few years? Given that the principle of consent is embedded in the Good Friday Agreement, and given that, whatever the two Governments have said about joint stewardship, they are not talking about ditching the Good Friday Agreement in order to implement joint stewardship, it seems to me that people are reaching for excuses. If the PUP has, as it puts it, been “giving advice” to its paramilitary connection, I wonder what influence it has and whether that connection serves any purpose any more. Is the PUP just part and parcel of the same thing to the point that it wants to have it both ways? Mr McFarland: That is obviously a question for the PUP. Dr Farren: It is not a question that you can answer, but there is a question of confidence even though the PUP would not be in any Executive. However, the UUP would be, with the support of the PUP. It would be important at that stage, if you persist with that relationship, to know where you stood if the influence that you hoped to exercise was not having the desired effect. Mr McFarland: Clearly, the relationship with loyalist paramilitaries or even their continued existence would be an extremely serious issue, if we get to the stage where the DUP and Sinn Féin are going into Government. It would be very strange if loyalism were still threatening people with guns. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are you finished, Dr Farren? Dr Farren: There are a number of other questions that would lead me almost into a negotiating situation, or into discussions associated with negotiations. I think it was Danny who was pursuing me the other day on North/South bodies. So, Danny, can I pursue you for a minute or two? Mr Kennedy: With great pleasure. Dr Farren: In the light of our experience of North/South bodies, what is the Ulster Unionist Party’s general position — without getting into specifics? I attended North/South Ministerial Council meetings with UUP Ministers, most frequently with Reg Empey, but also with Sam Foster and Michael McGimpsey. The veil of suspicion was lifted because the UUP Ministers saw that there was a job to be done that would be mutually beneficial to people, North and South, in a number of areas. When they realised that they could make a beneficial contribution, they went about the task as enthusiastically as I did on behalf of the people and the party that I represent. 2.00 pm Mr Kennedy: The position of the Ulster Unionist Party, and also, I think, that of the Democratic Unionist Party, is that where co-operation is to mutual benefit and interest on a North/South basis, we will co-operate. Co-operation cannot be politically manufactured. Some people have placed a greater emphasis on North/South co-operation, to the detriment of the east-west relationship; that issue has been a considerable concern. Little or no significant work, including the setting-up of secretariats or working bodies, has been done on an east-west basis. Although we will happily engage in meaningful co-operation to the mutual benefit of people, North and South, there are also many mutually beneficial east-west issues that we wish to explore. There are also concerns about the political emphasis; some nationalists and republicans have been more enthusiastic about the comfort blanket provided through a North/South link than an east-west link. Dr Farren: You say that some of the North/South bodies are “manufactured”, as if they were mere contrivances created for political ends rather than meeting particular needs. What bodies do you have in mind? Mr Kennedy: We are relatively comfortable with the existing bodies. However, nationalists and republicans have been suggesting that the number of bodies and joint agencies needs to be built on. We have yet to be convinced of the economic and social arguments. We certainly have yet to be convinced of the political arguments that would allow for the creation of new bodies, because the jury is still out on what they have provided and what benefits have accrued. We would like to measure that a little more and enhance east-west structures before we could reasonably be expected to increase the number of North/South bodies. Dr Farren: This is not the forum to go into details, but I would hope that you would have firm proposals as to how the bodies might be built on. Mr Kennedy: The east-west bodies? Dr Farren: I am talking about the North/South bodies, but I will come to the east–west bodies. You spoke about building on the number of North/South bodies. Mr Kennedy: No. I mentioned the fact that nationalists and republicans seem keener than unionists to build on the North/South bodies. Dr Farren: I hope that I would not be wrong in imagining that if a strong case were made for something to be built on, that that would be to the mutual benefit of people, North and South. Unionists sometimes perceive the SDLP as representing people in the South. I represent people in North Antrim, and I want the best for those people. When I held ministerial posts, I was acting on behalf of the people throughout Northern Ireland, from whatever section of the community they came. That was my primary responsibility. I was not necessarily interested in what was good for Cork — that was the job of the Irish Minister across the table. I argued as trenchantly as I could for benefits to be accrued for Northern Ireland, wherever a particular initiative was focused. The suggestion that was almost implicit in much of what is being said is that we would rather work for people in Dundalk, Drogheda, Dublin or somewhere else rather than for the people who elect us. I have to put myself up for election again, so voters would not thank me for being instrumental in locating a factory in Cork. They will thank me if I helped to locate a factory in Ballycastle or if I helped Ian to locate one in the middle of Ballee, or somewhere like that. Mr Kennedy: Steady on. Dr Farren: I am not sure whether I would get the same thanks for locating a factory in Ballee as I would were it in Ballycastle. Mr Paisley Jnr: You should have tried. Mr Kennedy: Although I accept Dr Farren’s bona fides as a local representative and his ongoing drive to improve facilities and the economy for those whom he represents in his locality, it has always appeared to some unionists that the SDLP placed a greater emphasis on its North/South Ministerial Council work than the practical outworking of it justified. Dr Farren: That is why I asked Mr Kennedy to point out what he thought was unjustified. That may be an argument or discussion to get into when we deal more with the specifics. I invite anybody, whether on the unionist side of the table or on Mr Ford’s side of the table, to point to where improvements can be made or to where matters can be ditched if they are no longer relevant, and let us see what comes out of that discussion. Finally, we have no difficulty in principle with the east-west arrangements. The fact that east-west relationships under the British-Irish Council took time to get going had as much to do with procedural problems and difficulties in arranging meetings that involved, as well as Administrations from here, those from the Channel Islands, Scotland, the Isle of Man, Wales and the South. Therefore, there were many logistical difficulties. Of course, people can say that the fact the British-Irish Council took time to get going was motivated by the ill will that certain people seemed to have towards it. I had no difficulty with it, nor did I think that Sinn Féin Ministers had. They went to the British-Irish Council meetings that they were required to attend. If we can improve the Council’s workings, make it more effective and help it deliver what is needed in any of its areas of responsibility, that is what we want to see. The same test of its benefits applies to the British-Irish Council as applies to the North/South Ministerial Council. Mr Kennedy: We would accept that as a welcome statement of intent. Dr Farren: We seem to be reaching reasonable degrees of agreement. Mr Kennedy: It is a Wednesday love-in. Dr Farren: Do not get too excited, Danny. Mr Kennedy: That is obviously down to being under the chairmanship of Jim Wells. Ms Ritchie: He is not after peregrine falcons. Mr McNarry: Remember that this will be in Hansard — you were on about somebody pursuing you and now you are involved in a love-in? Mr Paisley Jnr: Hansard will be interesting reading. Dr Farren: At least when the SDLP spoke, there were smiles all around, which is some achievement. I invite my two colleagues to contribute, Mr Chairman, if that is OK. Ms Ritchie: In his introduction, Alan referred to various issues that he felt that the Ulster Unionists’ Assembly party felt should be up for discussion, one of which was the Review of Public Administration. He said that the issue of seven councils, with or without an Assembly, should be up for discussion. We want to tease that out. From your previous comments we note that, like us, you are not content with seven councils. You mentioned repartition. What do you perceive to be the issues? Is it the configuration? Do you, like us, want a complete review? What is proposed does not reflect political or community homogeneity or linkage. What about the statutory mechanism for power sharing and the resource differential for delivery of functions between different councils? If the model is fully implemented, there will be nine road authorities instead of one: seven councils plus one for standards and performance and another for motorways and trunk roads. We want to tease out what you are thinking. Perhaps there could be a meeting of minds, and we could continue this Wednesday love-in. Mr McFarland: I do not want to go into detail, because it is an enormous subject and we agreed to leave the detail until later. We have maintained that local government areas should be coterminous with parliamentary and Assembly boundaries so that all the public representatives represent the same area at different levels, whether Westminster, the Assembly or local government. That seems logical as regards co-ordination and delivery of services and in terms of having people to go and point your finger in the chest of and ask to sort things out for you. We still maintain that that is the most sensible way, but the Government have crashed on with the seven-council model at fast speed. As far as the UUP can see, that model was dictated by the health service model, although that has changed several times since. That did not seem to be the most logical basis on which to support everything. Until recently, I understood that the only party keen on the seven-council model was Sinn Féin, which is understandable as that model would repartition Northern Ireland. However, it has recently been suggested that the DUP would be happy with seven councils. The danger with a seven-council model is that there will effectively be super councils in the west of the Province. Currently, Limavady Borough Council, Strabane District Council and Derry City Council team up with Donegal County Council on mutually beneficial cross-border issues, and no one has a problem with that. Unionists are currently represented on Strabane District Council and Derry City Council; however, under proportional representation, elections to a new super council would dramatically reduce the number of unionist councillors elected, and the new council would definitely be dominated by republicans/nationalists. The same would happen in Fermanagh. The seven-council model would create three enormous councils in the west. There has been talk of the chief executives being paid £160,000 a year, enormous budgets and a degree of free rein to do cross-border work. That effectively draws a line to the east of the River Bann. We keep advising our party colleagues in Banbridge or, as I understand it, Droichead na Banna, that they will need to know Irish because that council will be run from Newry. Mr Kennedy: Hear, hear. Mr McFarland: This is big stuff, because there will be three large nationalist councils in the west of the Province and three strongly unionist councils in the east. There is confusion over Belfast, because, as I understand it, the DUP had been assured that Belfast’s electoral boundaries would be pushed out to the suburbs, making it a unionist council. There is now talk of messing around with wards, and the chances are that Belfast will become a nationalist council. That would not be good for the Union. In fact, that is probably the biggest threat to the Union since 1922. The Government are crashing on with this issue on a Sinn Féin agenda, but the rest of us are saying: “Hang on a minute”. It is undemocratic; as far as unionists are concerned, it is extremely dodgy and threatening to the Union. It is generally unhealthy for extremely large councils to be able to drive through measures without anybody paying any attention. I suspect that unionist-dominated councils in the east present as much danger to nationalists who live in the east as nationalist-dominated councils do to unionists living in the west. The UUP likes the model of 15 councils because it ties in with everything else. It is a balance of effectiveness and efficiency and democratic representation. 2.15 pm Mr Paisley Jnr: Mr Deputy Chairman, on a point of order. I notice Mr McFarland has made another unnecessary attack on the DUP. He made the false allegation that the DUP supports the notion of seven councils. The record is very clear. First of all, Sam Foster commenced the review of local administration. Throughout the DUP’s chairmanship of the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA), my party’s position paper has never endorsed or supported seven councils. There is no evidence whatsoever for the machinations that Mr McFarland has claimed over the Review of Public Administration; about whether Paul Berry is getting reconverted again this summer; and about whether Jeffrey Donaldson is going to be a Minister in November. They are completely erroneous, and his own colleague’s hearty laughter at them shows how stupid he really is when he says these things. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McFarland. Mr McNarry: That is the love-in over now. [Laughter.] Mr Kennedy: It was all going so well. Ms Ritchie: I have not finished yet. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Have you stopped, Margaret? The RPA is slightly tangential. Ms Ritchie: I know it is only slightly related, but if I could just tease it out. Are there any other issues? I take it from what you have said that as we do, you would wish to ensure that a restored Executive and Assembly would get rid of the seven-council model and that we should have around fifteen. Mr McFarland: My understanding is that the Secretary of State has said that if we wish to head off this process of wrecking Northern Ireland and threatening the Union, we have to get ourselves back in Government. That seems to be the position that we are in. Ms Ritchie: With your indulgence, Chairman, could I ask Mr McFarland what other issues he sees as pertinent to a discussion about the Review of Public Administration? The Chairman (Mr Wells): As you have cleverly brought it back to relevance, Ms Ritchie, carry on. Mr McFarland: Again, it is a good idea for the Committee to fully discuss those issues, so they must first be identified. When we began, everyone reserved the right to seek advice if they were going to discuss particular areas in detail. For example, Jim Wilson MLA is our whizzo on the review, and if we were to go into detail on this, I would quite like to have him beside me. He could give you all the detailed answers that I simply do not have. Dr Farren: A wand. Ms Ritchie: Given that, I cannot pursue the RPA issue, but my colleague Dr Farren is pursuing the North/South issue with Mr Kennedy, and I would like to ask a question on that. You talked about North/South co-operation and matters that would bring benefit on a North/South basis. You also said that the Ulster Unionist Party was largely content with the remit of the current bodies. Would you also consider a future body to deal with transport, which would bring economic benefit to the people in the North as well as to the people in the South? Mr Kennedy: It would probably be a mistake to start negotiating on these terms. However, you have accepted our point that, in principle, where it is mutually beneficial, we will consider it. We considered the existing arrangements. We remain to be convinced that they — certainly, the powers that have been vested in them — should be amplified significantly. Of course, we remain to be persuaded on many of these matters. However, our first take on it would be that a significant increase is some way off. Ms Ritchie: I am sure that Mr Kennedy will accept that one of the best examples of cross-border co-operation on transport is geographically adjacent to his constituency. The work on the road between Newry and Dundalk, which is managed by the Roads Service in the North, is a good example of co-operation. Therefore, when a project such as that is in existence, why not pursue other projects on a joint basis under the auspices of a body? Mr Kennedy: I am keen that the road infrastructure in Northern Ireland be significantly improved, particularly in the area that I have the honour to represent. Therefore, I will reserve judgment on whether we can extend that co-operation to other jurisdictions. Ms Ritchie: Some areas for useful discussion have been identified. Mr Dallat: This subject was referred to earlier. Which was more important, bringing the UVF in from the cold or getting an extra seat for the UUP? Mr McFarland: The project to bring loyalist paramilitarism to an end has been a priority of ours since Sir Reg Empey took over as party leader. We have been engaged on it for most of the year and before the issue arose of any tactical moves to regain a position for unionism in the Assembly. However, an opportunity arose, and, as politicians and a political grouping, we took it. Mr Dallat: Although we are not here to look back at history, perhaps it is worth recalling that the first policeman to lose his life in the North was Constable Arbuckle, who was shot by the UVF in 1966. Indeed, to be fair, one of the last policemen to lose his life was Michael Ferguson, a Roman Catholic who was murdered by republicans in Shipquay Street in Derry. It does, therefore, come from both sides. The UUP in Belfast, as I understand it, has boycotted — Mr Kennedy: It is important for historical accuracy to record that Victor Arbuckle was murdered in 1969, not 1966. Mr Dallat: It is recorded in ‘Lost Lives’. Mr Kennedy: Hopefully, we can all agree that the important matter is that no one wants to see the life of any member of the security forces either compromised or taken. As a political party, we are prepared to do anything that we can to assist with the ending of paramilitary organisations, even though it appears that we will be criticised by parties such as the SDLP, which has previous experience in such matters. Mr Dallat: You are most helpful, and you have led me to my second question. Mr Kennedy: Thank you. Mr Dallat: I understand that the UUP is boycotting the Belfast District Policing Partnership. Is that a positive contribution to supporting the police? Mr Kennedy: I am not sure that the term “boycott” is an accurate description. Mr Dallat: Abstaining? Mr Kennedy: I am not sure that either boycotting or — Mr Dallat: Absent without leave? Mr Kennedy: It does not matter. The attitudes of the parties gathered round this table to the district policing partnerships and to the Northern Ireland Policing Board are not particularly relevant to the work of the Committee. Mr Dallat: Would you agree that, in the absence of political progress and the existence of a political vacuum, the police are vulnerable? In fact, I know of nowhere in the world where a police service can be progressive and advanced if there are no political institutions to support it. That is why I asked the question. In your paper, you say that the DUP and Sinn Féin must do the deal. Do you agree that as a political party you have a huge responsibility to do everything? Mr McFarland: I just covered that in some detail. I have covered the issue of the DUP and Sinn Féin several times, in terms of that phraseology. It is better if we all acknowledge that there is a political reality and that, at the moment, the Government are operating on the basis that those are the two key parties whose agreement is essential — according to the Government. We have always supported policing. However, there are individual issues that individuals have with regard to the Belfast DPP, and we have an issue with the Policing Board. I have spent the last four years on the Policing Board, leaving in April. A deal was done with David Trimble, Rev Ian Paisley and the then Secretary of State as to how the Policing Board would operate. It was in keeping with the Patten Report, which was quite clear that there should be 10 politicians and nine independents so that there would always be a political authority for the Policing Board. Unilaterally, however, the Secretary of State has turned the board on its head and introduced 11 independents and eight politicians. That is a quango. We disagreed then and we disagree now because that is a fundamental breach of the understanding of how the Policing Board was to operate, and it has been done in order to keep two seats warm for Sinn Féin. That is no way to interfere with what was — I would argue — an extremely successful board. Ian Paisley Jnr and I both sat on it. It worked well. It was one of the few institutions that was still working all the way through. The Secretary of State has unilaterally interfered with the basic premise of it. We had agreement with the DUP up until about two days before that. Both our parties were unhappy with that, and, for some reason best known to itself, the DUP suddenly did a somersault and joined the board, seemingly forgetting its principled objections. Mr Paisley Jnr: Once again, Alan likes to characterise things with his ‘Folks on the Hill’ attitude. Of course, the reality is much different. I was actually part of the negotiations on the deal between our party, the Ulster Unionist Party then, and the Secretary of State. Mr McFarland: So was I, Ian. Mr Paisley Jnr: Well, you were not at the meeting at which I was present in Westminster. The characterisation that you are giving to that is not accurate. Indeed, the characterisation was for the term of that board, and that term expired almost two years before the new arrangement was made. However, I agree that the Secretary of State was wrong to change the appointments around, but we are not responsible. No parties here are responsible for the appointments that he makes to a body, but I tell you this: it seems incredible — and Mr Dallat has put his finger on it to some degree — that the Ulster Unionist Party would publicly oppose the appointment of a member of the PUP to the Policing Board, yet would welcome with open arms a member of the PUP into its Assembly group. That is what appears incredible and inconsistent, as far as I am concerned. That leads to a very inconsistent approach to the Policing Board, whereby some days the Ulster Unionist members are at meetings, but other days they are not. That confusion needs to be better explained. Mr Kennedy: It is also somewhat hypocritical of those parties — including the DUP — that are super-critical of the Ulster Unionist Party’s decision in respect of the UUPAG, given their deafening silence at the time of the PUP chairperson’s appointment to the Policing Board. Nothing was said then. Mr Paisley Jnr: Once again, a point of clarification; if you read the Hansard of the House of Commons, you will see that the deputy leader of the DUP, Peter Robinson, made a statement on the day of the appointment. I know that the Ulster Unionist Party is not that well represented in the House of Commons, so its Members may not have heard that, but the rest of the public heard it loud and clear. Hansard states that, and there is no better place. Mr Kennedy: I am not sure that the general public were aware of that, but it is heartening to hear it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Please be brief, Mr McNarry, because we are drifting from scoping impediments to devolution. Mr McNarry: You have not heard what I am going to say, so how do you know that I will drift? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I hope that you will come back to the subject as quickly as possible. Mr McNarry: You seem to want to pick on me. Every time you sit there, you say that I have five minutes or that I am drifting. For the record, David Trimble and Rev Ian Paisley joined Ian Paisley Jnr at the negotiations. However, David Trimble was never under the impression that Rev Ian Paisley was agreeing to the formation of anything other than a Policing Board that would have a unionist majority. For Ian Paisley Jnr to suggest that there would only be a unionist majority for 12 months or one term seems quite disingenuous. The record will show that Ian Paisley Jnr said that his father agreed to the setting up of a Policing Board with a unionist majority for one term only. Mr Paisley Jnr: Once again, it would be helpful if the Member read the report of this meeting. I never mentioned the formation or the numbers on the board; it was the agreement on how it would be split, and the current board, even with the way in which the Secretary of State has fiddled with it, still has a unionist majority. That is guaranteed in legislation, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether the 10 members or the majority of members should be drawn from the political parties represented here. 2.30 pm Mr McFarland: That is what the legislation states: 10 politicians under d’Hondt and nine independent members. Mr Paisley Jnr: I think you will find that the legislation does not state that. That is the problem, and that was the problem with the Police (NI) Act 2000. That was another reason the DUP voted against the Bill when it was going through the House of Commons, and that was why the Ulster Unionist Party voted for it. Such actions have consequences. The agreement has been a failure, because people did not read the words properly and assumed things. Then when they work things out in time, they run away from the fact that they endorsed the Police (NI) Act 2000 and the Belfast Agreement which led to all the problems downstream. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will return to Mr Dallat. Those are all legitimate points, but we need to come back to the impediments to restoration of devolution. Mr Dallat: It is wonderful what effect a bit of stimulating questioning can have. A few minutes ago, Mr Paisley Jnr was reading a newspaper and now he is firing on all cylinders. Mr Paisley Jnr: Some of us can multitask. Mr Dallat: I do not see the whole concept of partnership mentioned in the UUP submission, but no doubt it is fundamental to it. I go back to those television pictures that were shown around the world of John Hume shaking hands with David Trimble and motivating the tens of thousands of people to come out and endorse the agreement. What plans do you have to re-engage with those people who have not exercised their franchise since? You spoke about fear in the community. Do you agree that maximum engagement between the two communities, in partnership with every element, is absolutely essential? Mr Kennedy: Yes. The UUP faces the same issues as the SDLP in trying to enthuse more people to support our view on matters. We are working hard to achieve that, and I assume that you are trying to do the same. Mr Dallat: That is a very happy note for me to end on. Mr Kennedy: Deliriously happy. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr O’Dowd has said that he wishes to speak. Unless anyone else wishes to speak, that will be the end of questions to the Ulster Unionist Party. Mr Kennedy: Sinn Féin has not had its turn yet. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sorry. Mr O’Dowd will speak first on behalf of Sinn Féin. Mr McNarry: You should be reprimanded for that. You should be paying attention to what is going on. [Laughter.] Mr Kennedy: Did Francie not tell you that? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will be taken off your Christmas card list. Mr O’Dowd: While we are putting things on the record, it is worth saying that Sinn Féin finds it interesting that both unionist parties are sitting in Westminster with the Secretary of State divvying up the Policing Board. If that is the way that things are operating at the moment, it certainly does not build our confidence in a new beginning to policing. Mr Kennedy: Do not criticise the Policing Board too much, because Sinn Féin has to join it at some stage. [Laughter.] Mr O’Dowd: If you had listened to my comments, I was criticising the private negotiations at Westminster. Mr Paisley Jnr: In the real world. Mr O’Dowd: Between the many questions today and the answers to them, a lot of points that Sinn Féin wished to raise have been either answered or clarified. So I will not go back over old ground just to lengthen Hansard or to be in a position to state to the press that Sinn Féin asked 24 questions and someone else asked 23. However, I seek clarification on some points and have questions that I want to put to the Ulster Unionist grouping. During Sinn Féin’s presentation the other day, the first question that the UUP asked was on IRA decommissioning. As a republican representative, whose party is trying to gain a better understanding of what is going on within unionism, I fail to grasp the major concern that we are told exists within unionism around IRA weaponry. I put it to you the other day that since the suspension of this institution, loyalists have murdered 26 members of the Protestant community. Why is the unionist political leadership still bringing up the issue of IRA arms? You stated here today that if that leadership tells its people that everything is failing and that we are going down the long slippery road, people will feel that way. Do you not feel that you continue to raise that issue and that you are creating that concern, rather than the concern coming from the bottom up? Mr McFarland: The weapons issue is a question of confidence and trust in the intentions of others. If violence were no longer being offered, why would you need weapons? Going back to 1998, at the time of the Good Friday Agreement, the UUP was very unhappy about the weapons issue and about the release of prisoners. The UUP’s view was that those two issues should have been linked, so that as the guns came in, the prisoners got out. That seemed logical. We were uncomfortable about people being released, but prisoners were released in 1962 after the 1956-1962 IRA campaign. There is a long history in Northern Ireland of releasing prisoners, but we were so unhappy at the way it was happening that we were not going to do the deal. Do not forget that, as I mentioned earlier, the UUP had never actually negotiated with Sinn Féin. We had spoken to the Government, the Government had spoken to you and had then come back to us. We relied on what they told us: that you were serious and that decommissioning was an issue that would be in the agreement and be finished by May 2000. We were sceptical about all that, but we were being reassured that that was what you were saying and that you were genuine. We did not trust that. Eventually, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom sent us a side letter assuring us that decommissioning would start in June 1998 and be finished by May 2000. On the basis of that letter, rightly or wrongly — and one has to make judgements at the time — we signed up to the agreement. It became clear fairly quickly that your team had no intention of decommissioning. Back-room briefings given to the boys in Newry, telling them not to worry, were leaked to the press. Martin Ferris and Pat Doherty went to America where a journalist got into the middle of their briefing, and it was played back that the republican movement had no intention of decommissioning. That was a big problem, because on the one hand we were being assured that you were serious and genuine and that decommissioning would happen, and on the other hand your people were telling your grass roots not to worry because it was not going to happen. Decommissioning became an issue that it should not have become, had it been done properly. Then the IRA issued a statement saying that yes, absolutely, it was going to decommission and not only that, but it would be done in such a way as to maximise public confidence. We thought that that was great; that finally it would be done, that there would be no doubt that you had done it, and that you were genuine after all. Then it did not happen, and there was confusion. Despite the fact that the first lot of decommissioning took place, events in Florida followed. There was clear evidence that members of the IRA were in Florida, importing weapons into Northern Ireland and the Republic. The question then was: why would anyone want to import fresh weapons? That sort of thing has dogged us. I accept the IICD’s determination that the bulk of the IRA’s weapons had been decommissioned. However, as I said this morning, the IMC is saying that weapons are being held back. The Committee heard me say this morning that they could be trophy weapons; they could be in undiscovered hides; and they could be protection weapons for people still involved in crime. Although not agreeing with it, one can understand to a degree why those people might wish to do that against instructions from the republican hierarchy. The hard part is that we cannot yet judge whether a massive amount — an entire brigade’s worth of weapons — has been held back. We are relying on the IMC and other intelligence to tell us that. When we were posing questions to Sinn Féin, I asked whether your party understood that as long as this confusion arises as to whether weapons have or have not been held back, it will add to the mistrust that we thought we had got away from with the IICD report. My advice was that we should not get hung up on this in the way we did before. However, it is a genuine issue, because the logical question remains: if people are not offering violence, why would they want to have a stash of guns? Mr O’Dowd: Conor Murphy spoke at length about our position on the IMC’s statement alleging that IRA weapons were still out there. You mentioned the Good Friday Agreement and the terms under which decommissioning would take place. Seán Farren has a copy in front of him, but I will paraphrase: it is the responsibility of all political parties to ensure that decommissioning takes place. Now you are telling us that your relationship — or however you want to phrase it — with the PUP is about bringing loyalist violence to an end, and you now accept that it is not easy to turn people away from the notion that using weapons is the only way forward. If politics was not seen to work, it was always going to be a difficult task, given the time frame that you set in front of us. Would you agree with that? Mr McFarland: I do: that is why we stuck with you. It would have been in the interest of the Ulster Unionist Party to simply abandon it and go back to our trench at the first whiff of Sinn Féin not playing the game over decommissioning. It was not in our party’s interest to keep wandering in and out of government with Sinn Féin to try to see if we could make all this work. As you well know, we have suffered as a consequence, but it was the best thing to do, and history will show that. Only those who have direct links to the folks with the guns can influence them. I cannot go to the IRA and say: “As a unionist I think it’s a jolly good idea if you hand your guns in.” The only people who can do that — and I understand that it is a difficult job — are yourselves, because you are the ones with the link to the IRA. In the same way, the PUP can influence the UVF in particular. We are trying to reinforce the message that the PUP is giving them: that the republicans are shuffling off the stage, and it is time for them to go too. There were attempts to remove them before, and for one reason or another they felt that they could stay. However, we are making it clear this time that we strongly believe — and I am sure the DUP is no different — that the loyalist paramilitaries should now pack up and go leg it, go home and get back to a normal life. It is no longer acceptable to have armed groups out there. 2.45 pm Mr O’Dowd: You say that Sinn Féin is required to support policing in any new Administration, although I do not think that you are using that as a block to Sinn Féin’s entering a restored Executive. Do you understand the difficulty in building nationalist confidence in a policing service or in convincing nationalists that there has been a new beginning in policing when, almost weekly, we hear revelations that sections of the PSNI are using and protecting prominent loyalist killers? How do you see republicans moving forward on policing against the background of such revelations? Mr McFarland: We need to differentiate between what happened in the past and what is happening in the PSNI now. Two years ago, Hugh Orde carried out a complete review of human intelligence sources and of who was working for them. It is clear that, over the past 30 years, practices had arisen that would not survive long in a new Police Service. I suspect that such practices arose in reaction to the terrorism that was going on at the time. Some people obviously felt that those practices were acceptable for the greater good and to stop people getting killed. If police officers have broken the law, they should go before the courts. However, policing has definitely changed. I have sat for four years on the Policing Board and have been involved in overseeing it. It has been a slow process, and we had clashes with those who were not happy with the speed at which the board wanted to move. By and large, however, most of the key elements in the Patten Report have been put in place. However, republicans have a problem: if they bring people onto the streets in fraught circumstances — to protest against parades, for example — and those people break the law by rioting, they will come into conflict with the police. That happens in any society. If those who are parading in central London, say, start to trash the shops, the police will try to stop them. There is an onus on those who bring people onto the streets: they know that they could be creating conflict with the police. I asked Conor about “turning the tanker”. It will be difficult for republicans to embrace policing because, until recently, their attitude has been one of “RUC securocrats colluding with loyalist death squads” — all the usual stuff. Having told a young republican from Crossmaglen that the RUC is a dirty, filthy organisation, Sinn Féin would then have to tell him to join it, and that the party is joining the Policing Board. I do not know how you will achieve that. If we are to have a normal society and a normal Government here, policing will have to be resolved. You and Conor have assured me that republicans can achieve that through initiatives led by the leadership of the party, and that you will hold an Ard-Fheis when the circumstances are right. However, we wait to see how successful such initiatives will be in getting young republicans to join the police and whether republicans embrace policing reluctantly or wholeheartedly. In order to have a normal society and a normal Government, republicans will have to embrace policing. Mr O’Dowd: We would need a normal police force for a normal society and a normal Government. In fairness, Alan, you did not answer my question about the continued use by sections of the PSNI of well-known loyalist killers. I am not talking about when that happened under Ronnie Flanagan or Jack Hermon. I am talking about what happened under Hugh Orde and about what happens under the present Policing Board. There is no record of the Policing Board holding that section of policing to account, and no police officer has appeared before a court under any of those arrangements. Mr Kennedy: We seriously contest and reject those allegations as unfair and untrue. We do not see the linkage that you have made between loyalist death squads and PSNI or RUC officers. We have significant difficulty with that. Mr O’Dowd: It is not just republicans who say that. Members of your own community who have lost loved ones over the last period are coming forward and stating that the killers of their loved ones are being protected by sections of the PSNI. Mr Kennedy: Many of those comments are unproven and are for other places. Mr McFarland: There are issues to be dealt with. As we understand it, the Police Ombudsman has forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) allegations that individual Special Branch officers went beyond their remit in dealing with informers. No doubt, that will reach the courts, and if it does not, I have no doubt that the Police Ombudsman’s office will publish that report, and people can make their judgement at that stage. It is wrong to suggest that there has not been enormous progress in normalisation and getting a proper police service for Northern Ireland. That is well under way. Clearly, there will be all sorts of residual issues such as those that we discussed concerning the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) when you were being questioned. It could be that evidence turns up against senior republicans to show that they have been involved in all sorts of crimes. Would it be right, at that stage, to castigate the present Sinn Féin party for what went on previously? It is right to castigate individual party members, if they are found to have committed crimes. If there are new members of Sinn Féin who were never involved in the troubles, is it right that they should be tarred with the same brush as those who were combatants? A substantial part of the PSNI is composed of brand new, enthusiastic young men and women from right across the community who believe that it is important to put their weight behind modern policing. That is what is happening. Ms Gildernew: I do not feel that John’s point about a normal society, normal Government and normal policing was adequately addressed. We have heard ad nauseum from William McCrea, among others, about how this Committee exists to scope and identify issues that are problematic to our restoring the Executive. This is a huge issue for republicans. Alan, you pointed out that there may be new, fresh, enthusiastic young people joining the PSNI. The old guard of the RUC is still there and still operating very much under the ethos of the RUC. A number of months ago, during a search in Dungannon of a republican’s home, a seven-year-old boy was threatened by a PSNI officer. At that time, we complained about that behaviour. That search and raid was conducted very much in the way that the RUC conducted searches and raids in many people’s homes across the North. You have said quite confidently that if people are found to have been colluding with loyalists — and there is plenty of evidence to that effect — they will be brought before the courts. We are not convinced. The fact is that the Special Branch is still allowed to run amok and do whatever kind of intelligence gathering or other work that it wishes. In my discussions with republicans about policing, that is the single issue that is most likely to be a deal breaker. The Policing Board cannot control those within the Special Branch and the PSNI. I do not think that Hugh Orde can control them either, to be honest. There are difficulties about people who are still engaged in policing with a very militaristic agenda against republicans in the Six Counties. Mr McFarland: We on the Policing Board receive regular briefings on what has happened in policing. We have been party to ensuring that changes take place, and they have taken place. I do not know whether your party receives briefings in detail on what is happening on policing, because sometimes it is hard to see these things unless you are fully up to speed with all that has happened over the past four years. There are very many checks and balances, right from the moment when someone is to be recruited as an agent. I do not know whether you accept that that is necessary. For example, suppose there were a non-paramilitary gang that is tiger kidnapping, and you discover that somehow you can recruit the wife of one of the key members of that gang who will provide information on the threat posed by that gang to individuals, such as why a particular person will be kidnapped. Do you accept that it is necessary to obtain information and agents to deal with crime? If there is no acceptance of the need to obtain information — be it electronic or human intelligence — we will have a bit of a problem in society with policing. All societies right across the world have such measures. If you accept that it is necessary to recruit agents, it raises the whole issue of whether you should be recruiting agents for your organisation. However, if your organisation is doing nothing, there is not much need to worry about agents. There is a threat from the Real IRA, and there is a threat from the Continuity IRA. I saw in a paper last week that a new group has just been set up that was pictured standing over a grave with masks and weapons, etc. There is an ongoing threat from loyalists and republican paramilitaries, although perhaps not mainstream Provisionals. There is a need to maintain access to information, from human or electronic sources. However, the checks and balances in this area now are just unbelievable. There are entire commissions that have to look at all of those matters before one is allowed to recruit someone. There is a complaints mechanism if a surveillance operation goes wrong. Obviously, the Police Ombudsman will deal with the case that Ms Gildernew mentioned. If a policeman has been rude to someone during a house search — Ms Gildernew: He was not rude; he threatened a child. Mr McFarland: That is even worse. Presumably that matter is with the Ombudsman, who will investigate it with all of her resources — and she has zillions of pounds worth of resources, both in manpower and money. If an officer is found to have threatened someone, he or she should go before the courts, because you cannot have a Police Service that contains people who are going around and threatening people. That is just daft — if it is taking place. My point is that we now have checks, balances and mechanisms, which I agree were not there before. Therefore, we can have an improved and increased degree of confidence that people are trying to produce a genuine Police Service for all of us. Ms Gildernew: My point is that there are, continue to be, and probably still will be, people who are outside of those checks and balances and who will be able to carry on their shady dealings without any kind of accountability to Hugh Orde, to the Policing Board, or to anyone. Mr McFarland: They cannot. Ms Gildernew: I disagree. Dr Farren: I have a very quick intervention, which may be helpful at this stage. Michelle raises a very real issue. However, suppose Sinn Féin were on the Policing Board, and that kind of behaviour continued. What are Michelle and her colleagues going to do about that? Ms Gildernew: That is my point. They are outside of accountability. Mr O’Dowd: Can I answer that question? There are mechanisms within the power of Policing Board, outside those of the Police Ombudsman, to investigate procedures. The Policing Board has never used those powers. Mr McFarland: The reason that the board has never used those powers is that we have a good relationship — I think that it is fair to say — with the PSNI’s top team. There have been one or two occasions when we have had to get robust with them, but normally if you ask them for information, they will come and give you a briefing — albeit confidential — on the matter. There are checks and balances all the way through the system. If there is information to the effect that police officers are not acting properly, all those who can investigate that should be alerted. Investigation systems exist at the moment. 3.00 pm Dr Farren: If Michelle and her colleagues were on the board, insisting that such behaviour was reported and investigated, they would be in a much better position to see whether the mechanisms were being used. You are making that point and are building up the case as to why Sinn Féin should be on the board, using the available mechanisms. Mr O’Dowd: If that is the case, Michelle and I are prepared to answer questions from everyone around the table. I thought that we were asking the UUP questions. In this Committee, we are scoping issues of concern about preparation for Government. I have said to my unionist colleagues that I am trying to understand the concerns of the unionist community. There are also concerns in the nationalist and republican community about issues such as policing. I have outlined those concerns. Mr McFarland: Do you get briefings on policing? Mr O’Dowd: Our party regularly debates the issue of policing — the day-to-day issues, reports from commissioners, and so forth. Are you asking me whether my party is briefed on the four years of change? Mr McFarland: Do you engage with the police? You say that you do not engage, and perhaps this is not the right forum to discuss that issue, given that any response will be recorded by Hansard. Logically, Sinn Féin would be better placed to discuss policing — and, indeed, to take up Ian’s earlier offer to discuss and negotiate policing with all of us — if it were as up to speed on the intricacies of the progress that has been made in policing as the other parties are. The other parties sit on the Policing Board and have an intimate knowledge of what has happened. When Sinn Féin discusses policing and policing mechanisms, it is at a disadvantage if it does not have the same level of first-hand information. Ms Gildernew: As the UUP and the DUP have pointed out, the SDLP is also at a disadvantage because the UUP and the DUP had meetings with the British Secretary of State to discuss the make-up of the Policing Board, and the SDLP was excluded from those meetings. Mr Paisley Jnr: The SDLP was there as well. Mr McFarland: The SDLP was in on this the whole time. Alex Attwood has never been left out of anything yet. The SDLP was in before us. Dr Farren: We had it all sewn up. They were left with the pickings. Mr O’Dowd: I can assure Alan that Sinn Féin is kept up to date, except for the details of the secret meetings at Westminster. I am glad that you let us in on that. Does the Chairman want to break for tea and coffee? We have only a couple of further questions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We seem to be coming to the end of this discussion. We can get into the meat of the agenda later. Mr O’Dowd: I have a couple of further questions. Mr Kennedy: If there are only a couple of questions, it might be useful to take them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Some of the questions have lasted a long time. Mr O’Dowd: These questions might not last as long, given that David has left the meeting. Events on the street — Alan has referred to them already — can affect the wider political process. What is the UUP doing on the ground to ensure that we have a quiet summer? I know that UUP representatives will be present at parades and interfaces, but how we can prepare collectively for a quiet summer? Mr Kennedy: In certain areas, Ulster Unionist Party members have made representations to the PSNI, to the Parades Commission, to authorised officers and to contacts in the Loyal Orders in an effort to ensure that the summer is as peaceful as possible. The issue has been well considered. In the unionist community, a strong sense of cultural identity is attached to parades, which is often missed, or deliberately overlooked, by many nationalists and republicans. Therefore, the onus is on everyone to do whatever they can to ensure that there is no public disorder or violence on the streets while lawfully constituted parades process. Mr O’Dowd: My next question could wait until after the break, when we talk about our discussions so far. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is correct. That is the subject matter for discussion after the break. The Committee will suspend for 10 minutes. The Committee was suspended at 3.06 pm. On resuming — 3.18 pm (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): I remind members to switch off their mobile phones. Is Mr McFarland expected to return? Mr Kennedy: He is. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there any indication as to how long he will be? Mr Kennedy: I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet. Mr Hay: You are very like a prophet, though. Mr Kennedy: Thank you very much. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are moving on to some quite important business. Mr McNarry: He will be here in five minutes, Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The difficulty is that the time is up. Mr Kennedy: Mr McFarland would not expect you to wait for him. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Let us hope that he will arrive; Mr Dallat also appears to be missing. Dr Farren: He is not under the table. Mr Kennedy: Missing, presumed missing. Ms Ritchie: Chairman, Mr Dallat went upstairs but his bag is still here, so we can presume that he coming back. Mr Ford: That is an excuse. He has escaped. The Chairman (Mr Wells): A couple of new faces have arrived. For the record, Mr McCarthy is here in place of Mrs Long, and Mr Hay has replaced Mr Paisley Jnr. Ms Gildernew: I am leaving shortly, and Alex Maskey will be joining the meeting. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have concluded what everyone will accept has been an intensive examination of the various presentations to the Committee. I thank everyone for being so patient during a long and detailed series of sessions. We will move to what is an important part of today’s meeting. We must decide how the Committee’s work will be taken forward. Members will know that the two Prime Ministers are visiting Parliament Buildings tomorrow, and this floor will be taken over as a result. If the Committee decides to meet, special provision can be made to access this room, if needs be. We can decide whether to meet later. The Committee has a number of decisions to make. Should we present a paper on the Committee’s work thus far to the Secretary of State, for consideration by the two Prime Ministers? That is entirely a matter for the Committee and, once again, I emphasise that any decision must be made by consensus. No decision means that we do nothing. What are members’ thoughts on that important issue? Mr Kennedy: There are a number of scenarios. Now that the parties have presented their positions, it might be important to think about how to bring that to the attention of the Assembly. It would be useful to involve the wider Assembly, perhaps through a take-note debate of the minutes and Hansard records of the large number of Committee meetings. We could consider what we could recommend to the Business Committee, which, in turn, would make recommendations to the Secretary of State, through whatever convoluted methodology is necessary to do that. It would be good for the Assembly to put on record and acknowledge the important work of this Committee. Dr Farren: It will be very difficult to encapsulate simply what has transpired over this series of meetings in which we have questioned each other. The Hansard report will be distributed to all our colleagues in the Assembly. However, I am not sure whether that would form the basis for a take-note debate. That is not to say that the contents of the Hansard report would not be drawn upon in any debate about how we should move forward. As I said in my questions to the UUP, the two Governments are likely to want the Committee to build on the work that it has initiated. They will not want the Committee to continue in the vein of the past few days, but to build on its work in a much more focused way. The Committee staff have been helpful in trying to identify each party’s key points from their initial presentations. Further distillation to find general headings will still be necessary if we are to provide a meaningful handle on the business that has come out of our discussions, which have covered issues that are immediately very important to issues that are important, but of less immediacy. I have always felt that that is the distinction that we need to make. We need to consider what precise issues fall within the first and second general headings. There may be a need for further subcategories within the broad headings that I suggested. If we decide that providing information to the Assembly is at least one of the ways through which progress might be made, perhaps we could link some of the debate to what the two Governments say tomorrow. That will mean that we will have to wait to hear what they have to say. We will have engaged with them and we will have had the opportunity to influence their thinking and to enlighten them as to what we think must be addressed. The question of how we take things forward has been the basis of the stand-off in the Committee, with some parties saying that the Assembly exclusively had to be either the way forward or the channel or conduit from which progress would be made through the establishment of working parties, and others saying that this Committee had to create — or be itself — the forum in which more intense discussion on specific issues would be taken forward. We have got to get round that, and it would be regrettable if any party were to exclude itself from the process, which has been the attitude to the Assembly adopted by Sinn Féin. It has excluded itself from the means through which we could go forward. Perhaps I am wrong, but my understanding is that Sinn Féin is not totally opposed to participating in the Assembly. It would participate if there were a clear restoration focus to its business. Therefore, it may be that we could move in that direction if we suggested business with that focus. I am sorry for being roundabout in my comments, but it is not easy to be crystal clear and precise about the kind of business that we would — if we agree that we should — hand over to the Assembly. I am not sure how precise we can be at this stage. Mr O’Dowd: It was agreed this morning that all MLAs would receive copies of the Hansard reports. In deciding whether to hand business to the Assembly, the question is what business — other than those reports — would we hand over? The Committee was set up to scope the issues that it would be necessary to resolve or to examine to prepare for Government. Although there have been lengthy question-and-answer sessions, there has not been a serious engagement from the DUP on that matter. That is a disappointment, because this venue could have been useful in the last number of weeks to resolve issues of concern to all parties. At this stage, therefore, we see no point in bringing a take-note debate to the Assembly. We are not opposed to bringing forward substantial work from this Committee for debate if it concerns the restoration of the Executive. As I have said on a number of occasions, that work has not been completed. Therefore, although we are at the eleventh hour, and the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister will arrive tomorrow, there is no point in reporting progress for the sake of reporting progress. 3.30 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): Perhaps it would be worth hearing from each of the parties. We have to reach some form of consensus. Remember, there are two issues: what we do for tomorrow and what we do after tomorrow. Therefore, perhaps we should address the urgency of the situation because if we are going to do something, staff need a clear indication of our intentions. Mr Ford: I see little prospect of us producing anything to put to the two Governments tomorrow, unless it is the draft working document in our papers for today’s meeting, which has been prepared by the staff. However, that simply highlights the issues that have been raised individually, which does not indicate much progress, as Mr O’Dowd has just said. In that context, I am not sure that there is anything that we can meaningfully do for tomorrow. No doubt each of the parties will individually make clear to the two Governments its position and what it believes to be the benefits — or lack of benefits — in the way that this Committee has worked. If John O’Dowd is saying no to a take-note debate — and a couple of weeks ago there was four-party agreement around this table that we should consider something like that — then how much progress does Sinn Féin require before we can have what it determines to be a meaningful debate? Mr O’Dowd: Sorry, Mr Chairman, did Mr Ford say four-party or full-party agreement? Mr Ford: I said four. Mr O’Dowd: At this stage, we would not be opposed to some progress, but we are not going to debate no progress. Our view of this Committee was that it would be a substantial Committee made up of delegations of senior members from each party, and that we were to scope the issues. We have not done that. We have expanded on a debate that could have taken place in any TV or radio studio across this island. That is what we have been engaged in for the last week. Ideally, we believe that this Committee should have been broken down into subcommittees to examine in detail the areas of concern. For example, we could have done a fortnight’s work on policing and justice, an issue about which there have been a number of questions back and forth. We could have debated and discussed at length the peace dividend, and prepared a report that could have been debated on the Assembly Floor. Those are only two examples of work that we could have done and have not done. Mr McFarland: It is encouraging that for three weeks all the key parties have sat around the table having some sort of engagement. It is imperfect; we have had rows back and forth and up and down, but by and large I view this as some sort of progress — albeit minuscule. We agreed originally that we would hear the parties’ submissions, and we have just completed that. This is a very imperfect document; it was our first best guess when we started. We now have several days’ worth of detailed submissions on the parties’ views. We are clearly not going to get them in any form by tomorrow. Tomorrow is the day for the parties to meet with the Prime Ministers and have a blether about things generally. We need now to ask the team to put together some form of document — not necessarily in matrix form, but perhaps with headings and notes of which parties subscribe to which issues, or which issues have been raised, because there are a number of common issues throughout the submissions. We are only just getting the Hansard reports of our meetings. I have not had a chance to read any of them yet. We will get another report of today’s meeting — which I may not wish to read. Committee members need time to examine what everybody has said and what the themes are, and then meet again with a clearer picture. Further questions may even be raised because of issues that were not picked up on at the time. We have produced an important body of work. I have had a quick read of the newspapers, and people are rubbishing the Committee and having a go at the DUP for producing Taliban. We have been hard at it here, and there is much to take in from all the parties who had various opinions on the UUP ‘s submission. Therefore, we need some time to reflect. I do not know what the timescale for producing a report should be and how much of an effort we need to ask the Committee staff to put into it. However, members could do with some time to read Hansard and discuss matters with their party colleagues. Perhaps we could regroup early next week. I understand that the Assembly will run into next week. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Assembly technically will, but whether there will be a plenary is a different matter. Mr McFarland: Yes, but we have not broken up for the summer, so we could meet next week after we have all had a chance to reflect on the ins and outs of the past five days, because there is a lot of information to take in. Mrs D Dodds: First, many around the table have reiterated the point that serious work must be done. However, that has not been helped by certain parties referring to members of delegations in derogatory terms, such as referring to them as members of the Taliban or as Talibanesque figures. It is up to individual parties to decide whom they choose to represent them at this Committee. I assure everyone that the DUP representatives are here with full authority, and they have been appointed by the party leader to do a specific job. Secondly, I have heard much from Committee members about the progress that has been made. The DUP has faithfully attended every meeting and engaged in this process in every way that has been expected of it. As Mr Ford said at the meeting of 16 June, there was a general agreement that, at some stage, it would be useful to engage all 108 Assembly Members in the work of this Committee and in some sort of take-note debate, along the lines of the House of Commons take-note debates when a Committee produces headings of its work, which it then puts forward to the House for general debate and discussion. It would be helpful if we tried to proceed along those lines, since this is not a process that is exclusively for a small group, but one that involves a wider audience in the Assembly. There is a short timescale for the Committee to prepare anything for tomorrow. I strongly suspect that the parties have their agendas drawn up for tomorrow, and things should probably be left like that, unless we want to ask the Secretary of State and the Prime Ministers to take note of the work that the Committee has done over the past few weeks. That may be a reasonable suggestion. Alan talked about needing time to examine the documents, and there is some truth in that. However, we are also up against a tight deadline, in that the Secretary of State has said that work can continue on the week beginning 3 July. The Assembly would go into recess at the end of that week. If the Committee agrees, it would be useful and informative to have a debate along those lines in the Assembly Chamber next week, and we may want to prepare headings for that. Hansard may be too wide a publication for that debate, but I am easy on that too. However, our deadline is some time next week. Dr Farren: From what I have heard, all parties accept the value of some kind of debate in the Assembly. The trick is to find a route to finding a formulation for such a debate that enables all parties to participate. It may be useful for one representative from each party to meet, possibly after tomorrow’s meeting with the Prime Ministers. If we still agree that we should try to reach an agreed basis for an Assembly debate, we could possibly meet on Friday morning — I am thinking of the time required after tomorrow’s meeting to prepare for a debate, if one is to take place next week. Representatives could come back to the Committee, possibly on Monday, with a formulation enabling us to agree. The Committee could put that formulation to the Business Committee and give the Assembly notice that there may well be, although we could give no guarantee, a debate on Tuesday of next week. There may be holes in what I have said, but I am honestly trying to think of a way forward that meets the needs of the moment, and a lot could well depend on what transpires tomorrow. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Before Mr O’Dowd comes in on that, there is a procedural difficulty. Dr Farren: OK, fine. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Assembly must have three days’ notice of a debate, so if you were going down that route — Mrs D Dodds: Sorry, there is a matter for clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. I recall much less notice than that for previous debates. The Committee Clerk: Under current Standing Orders, the Secretary of State makes a direction for a sitting of which Members must have three days’ notice. For example, there would be a direction on Friday for a sitting on Tuesday. However, no notice is necessary of what the Order Paper will contain, so referral of business could be on Monday, and Members could come to a sitting not necessarily knowing what it is about. There is no need for three days’ notice of the subject matter. Mr O’Dowd: I just want to clarify something. I thought that I had made myself clear. Sinn Féin does not agree to a debate on the Committee’s work whether it is next week, the week after that or any other week. The purpose of the Committee is to prepare for government. Momentum seems to be building that the purpose of the Committee is to enable us all to debate in the Assembly Chamber and play the politician. There has been insufficient, or indeed any, progress in the Committee to substantiate debating any issues in the Assembly. If we reach a stage, and Sinn Féin wants to get to that stage, where the Committee can set up subcommittees for detailed discussion and the preparation of reports, we will take a different view. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It looks as though we do not have consensus on that issue. Mr McFarland: When the DUP first came to the Committee, it said that the only purpose of the Committee was to scope the issues. There would be logic to the DUP’s walking out this afternoon saying that the issues have been scoped, end of story, that the Committee no longer exists and that there are to be no subgroups, nothing. My understanding is that the DUP will not do that and that it is being positive about this whole process. I must say that, despite the first few days of shouting and roaring, the DUP has been here, playing its part and engaging with everybody, and fair play to it for that. I am worried now that Sinn Féin is starting to try to run the show here and decide when a, b, c, or d is done. There has been a degree of goodwill around the Committee table, and if you look at Hansard you can see that we have done some interesting stuff. What we have done here in the past five days has never been done before. 3.45 pm I appreciate that Sinn Féin has reasons for not wanting a talking shop, and I recognise that it does not support other debates, but perhaps Sinn Féin could see its way, in the interests of harmony and good-neighbourliness, to taking a positive view. Martin McGuinness said early on that if work came out of this Committee, Sinn Féin would support a debate. One is then into a discussion about what constitutes work. I would argue that five days’ worth of substantial Hansard reports is a fair amount of blethering. The DUP had four hours of questioning, we have had five hours today and Sinn Féin had six. The Alliance had a couple of hours’ worth and the SDLP had four. That is a substantial body of work, which is being ignored or regarded as irrelevant. I would argue that it is very relevant. I know that Sinn Féin has fears that this will turn into a row. However, it would be useful for our colleagues, having read Hansard, to have an opportunity to air some of these debates, because they are public anyway. When the Hansard reports are published, the press will have them wall-to-wall. What Willie McCrea said to Martin McGuinness and vice versa will be all over the airwaves, so it is not that no one will see it. That was the case until today, but now all of this is public, so one will not hear anything in a debate that the press will not have already. The fears about stoking the fires should be gone with the publication of Hansard. In the interests of Committee goodwill and of involving the wider Assembly, it might be possible for Sinn Féin to ruminate on that and reconsider having some form of discussion on the work of the Committee, which has been good. The logic of all that would be that it might encourage all of us to continue that good work. There are several issues that merit further examination. This Committee has gone relatively well, if not ideally. It would be a pity to unilaterally destroy what has the makings of taking us forward. It could get into subcommittees and go all sorts of places, but we need to do it as a Committee, examining our way forward with no one making demands or preconditions or things that make it difficult for others to shuffle along the road. Despite Sinn Féin’s misgivings about debates in the Chamber stoking the fires, and in light of the publication of Hansard, I wonder whether it is possible to have some form of take-note debate next week to show that the Assembly, before it breaks for the summer, is actually able to sit in a Committee, to do good work, and to bring it up to some sort of a debate. Mr O’Dowd: If I have given the impression that we wish this Committee to end today, I am sorry. That is not what we wanted to put across. This Committee still has work to do, and despite our scepticism, we still think it can be done. As I have said, it is not the role of the Committee to automatically provide debates for the Chamber. As Alan has said, if substantial issues have been highlighted in Hansard then, as he has suggested, we should go away and examine Hansard and come back to the Committee to decide our way forward. I do not wish to put across the message that we are stopping our work in the Preparation for Government Committee; we are not. An important meeting will be held tomorrow with the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister, which might lead to more clarification and fresher thinking. It might help if people went through the Hansard report to target the substantial issues and return to the Committee to discuss the way forward. Mr McFarland: There is nothing mutually exclusive about this. It will take us a day or two to get our heads round the Hansard report. However, that does not stop us setting a plenary date for next Tuesday, as all Assembly Members and ourselves will have had an opportunity to consider the Hansard report by then. That would not stop us meeting on Monday to refine our thinking, which I think we need to do. We need to read the Hansard report and get our thinking clear about whether other areas require further examination — I believe that they do. Some areas we can park, because most of the parties here have no influence over them; therefore we should simply register them. That should not stop us sending out what would be a really good sign for the Assembly. The public thinks that we are a waste of rations; that we have spent the past three years earning money and doing nothing. People have not yet seen the work that goes on in the Committee; when they do, they will be genuinely amazed that the parties can sit down and have a discussion with one another. It would be even better if we could have some collectivity by involving our colleagues in this amazement next Tuesday. We could meet on Monday to refine matters. The members of the Committee would be the lead speakers in any such debate. We have a vested interest in not blowing the lid off the Committee; we have a vested interest in making sure that it works. I do not believe that anyone here will demand that the whole thing explode. I know that that is difficult for you and that you are probably sailing under orders, but would you be happy to ask your top team whether, in the interests of the Assembly and the work of the Committee, it might consider taking part in a sensible debate — albeit limited, perhaps a couple of hours’ worth — on Tuesday to show that the Committee is working? Dr Farren: Lest there be any misunderstanding about the SDLP’s position, let me state that the SDLP does not regard the Assembly as the be-all and end-all for discussing and resolving issues. We do see continuing, necessary work for this Committee. Among the issues identified in the various submissions — although this is not an exclusive statement — and the discussions that have arisen from them has been that of economic regeneration. The Assembly has already had a lengthy and comprehensive debate on that topic, although Sinn Féin did not participate. However, if an Assembly motion were tabled to ask the Governments to urge the Committee to continue its work and to address the question of economic regeneration — and I am not formulating precise terms for such a motion — Sinn Féin could participate in the debate on it. Others might want to contribute. We could have a take-note debate. Perhaps take-note is too loose a term, particularly for Sinn Féin. However, I urge a motion that asks that the Preparation for Government Committee continue its work, the Assembly having noted what has transpired to date, having noted what the two Governments have said, and, in particular, having noted that there is common concern with respect to economic regeneration. One might even add other issues, if there were agreement. However, it is particularly important that we Assembly Members urge that that work continue over whatever period of time. Such a motion might begin to meet concerns about having a debate that simply goes in all directions. It could well go in all directions, but it would have to come back to the more precise elements in the motion, if contributions were to be meaningful. Something like that might help. Mr McNarry: I will not bow the knee to Sinn Féin in requesting a debate, but this will be the second time since I have joined this Committee that we have been faced with making a decision to which Sinn Féin is the obstacle. It is not easy for me to explain to my people that, on two occasions, when the word debate was used, Sinn Féin has sought to prevent agreement. Sinn Féin is unable to concede to the consensus that I gather exists among other colleagues sitting around the table. I do not believe that that situation can continue. With all due respect, I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed about how well we have all got on, about how points have been put across, and about how people have had their moments. However, quite frankly, speaking personally, I am being encouraged — and I am being asked to encourage my party — to come to a meeting such as this when I know fine well that, because it does not suit one party, all the discussion, all the talk and all the reports in Hansard are great, but all that we can do is read them. Therefore, I am not going to beg, but I do not know what could encourage Sinn Féin to, for once in its life, give recognition to its colleagues. Why be the odd one out all the time, when there is otherwise consensus? That is not a consensus to browbeat them or anyone else into anything. There are some in this room who have deliberated for far longer than I have; I have only been here for a week. Having put that effort in, and having listened to what Diane Dodds said in summary about how she felt about this matter, it is pretty clued-in stuff. However, if that is the position of all parties bar one, in effect we are really telling our colleagues in the Assembly that they do not matter. I think that that is wrong, because they do matter. If I had not been privileged enough to be here, I would expect the people who were here to come to the Assembly and seek my support for this Committee to continue. If it is felt that this Committee can continue without asking for the support of all MLAs, we are setting ourselves up to be something that we are not. We owe it to our colleagues in the Assembly to debate the issues and, in that manner, to seek their support for continuing our work. However, if the continuance of the work all falls down because Sinn Féin does not like where it is going, or it wants to block or to veto, it makes it very difficult to sell that to my people. I am out of government because of your obstinacy and your petulance and your persistence in vetoes. I cannot get you out of government because of that veto. My ability to work for my constituency in the manner that I was elected to do has been obstructed because of vetoes. As for vetoing ourselves and our colleagues in the Assembly, I do not know how on earth you sell that, Chairman. I do not know how I can go back and talk to my party colleagues. I cannot beg; I can only ask you to see reason. If everybody else has taken a reasonable attitude, why cannot you? 4.00 pm Mr Maskey: I do not want to take full issue with everything that David has just said. I share the frustration — certainly felt by our party — that we are a number of weeks into this process, and we cannot identify significant progress. Alan asked the question: how do you measure progress? Some may consider 20 hours of grilling as progress, but I cannot measure that as progress, to be perfectly frank. There is a bit of an irony in that a number of years ago a 20-hour grilling would probably have generated a lot of heat and perhaps less light. The interesting thing is that today it would not even generate as much heat because people have heard all of these arguments so often before. John O’Dowd made the point that a lot of what has been said has been exchanged before in interviews and debates on radio and television. Obviously, it is important that this Committee meet. We are totally committed to it. We are very committed to trying to get substantive business conducted through this Committee and with all elected Assembly Members engaged in that process. We want that to happen very quickly, but as John has already said, we do not see that there has been significant enough progress to bring that to an Assembly debate. That is the very clear position that we adopted from day one. We have worked very hard in this Committee, as have other members, but the outcome, to date, does not, in our view, warrant or justify an Assembly debate. Arguably, you could go in there and rehearse all of the 20 hours of grilling plus the other business that the Committee has discussed. You would either put the Members to sleep or fire them up for the summer, because there is nothing to report to them by way of recommendations for future work. Alan suggested that the Committee staff try to collate, from the Hansard reports to date, the issues that are outstanding. That might be a useful mechanism to let the Committee meet again and, on the back of that work, to take stock of whatever progress has been made. If the officials can cull from the lengthy Hansard reports an itemised agenda, we can take stock and, more importantly, decide what our next steps should be. That would be useful, because we would be able to start to scope some of these issues. It is very regrettable that we have not made sufficient progress to go to an Assembly debate. We would be delighted to go to the Assembly and report progress in this Committee. That is what we are here for — to make some headway. We do not want to be wasting our time, twiddling our thumbs or having lengthy debates in here that we could have anywhere else. Unfortunately, we have not made enough progress, and our position has been clear from day one. We want this Committee to knuckle down, examine the obstacles and issues, and make recommendations to tackle those matters and progress them. It is regrettable that the Committee has not done that. However, it is still not too late. We see considerable merit in the earlier suggestion of identifying, from the Hansard record, the key issues and themes. Let us take stock of the Committee report and then decide what we do next. We can continue to work over the next days and weeks. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is Mr Hay next. I would like to take advice on the table of issues, which has come up several times. Mr Hay: I am not totally au fait with all the issues that have been discussed in this Committee. Listening to the debate, I think that the Committee has come to a point when decisions must be made about how we move forward constructively and deliver. The DUP could not support leaving the Assembly behind. Listening to discussions of the issues that have been raised by all the parties, and especially by Sinn Féin, I almost have the impression — although perhaps I am wrong — that they are looking for an exit strategy to get out of the Committee and out of the Assembly. I also agree with Seán that the Assembly is not the be-all and end-all to progressing this issue. Leaving the Assembly behind, and thus having no opportunity to debate, does huge damage to other Assembly Members. They have been totally left behind. Assembly Members want to be in the Chamber, debating issues that have been identified by this Committee. The trick for this Committee is to reach a twin-track approach, where Committee work continues alongside debates in the Chamber to which everybody can reasonably sign up. No matter how this Committee progresses, or how long it lasts, other Assembly Members cannot be left behind; they must be involved in any debate about the future. If, for whatever reason, people are being obstructive, my party would have to decide whether there is any point in sitting on this Committee if we cannot debate in the Chamber. We need to discuss how we reach a twin-track approach to try to resolve issues that all the parties are passionate about. If people are saying that good, reasonable work about progressing the issues has been conducted in this Committee, it might be useful to have a reasonable, sensible debate in the Chamber. There is no point in the DUP’s staying on this Committee if there is to be no debate in the Chamber. It is wrong for any party to judge when enough work has been done in this Committee and that the time is right for a debate in the Chamber. There is broad support around this table for a debate on the issues. How do we get to the point where that is up and running? A debate in the Chamber would not obstruct the work of this Committee. There may be a fear that if there were to be a debate in the Chamber, Assembly Members might not bother to turn up at this Committee. One party in the Committee cannot say that there should be no debate, when there is a clear consensus around the table that there should. Our party will not continue to sit on this Committee if there is to be no debate in the Chamber. That will not be an option for our party. However, we are prepared to attend the Committee. Alan was correct when he said that we could walk away today and say that the scoping exercise has been done. As far as we are concerned, our work is done. We shall report back to our party, and, if we cannot get to a point at which we can tell the party that an Assembly debate is achievable, it will perhaps decide that our work is done. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Before I call Margaret Ritchie, several members have suggested that it was the Committee staff’s role to add to or amend the table of issues. As members know, it is a working document, and I think that it is entirely inappropriate for the staff to amend that table. To do so is entirely a matter for the political parties. I wish to make it very clear that it is highly unlikely that it will be appropriate for the Clerks to amend the table. I know that several members, during various sittings, approached the table of issues from different angles. It is totally understandable that people had different understandings of what the document would be. If parties have amendments, additions or deletions to make, they should draft those amendments and ask the Clerks to insert them into the table. However, if members anticipate that the Committee staff will amend the table, I do not believe that that will happen. Mr McFarland: Our experience tells us that this Committee is, in theory, no different from any Committee that took evidence in the first Assembly. Committee staff would at that time have produced a report on the essence of the evidence that had been presented. What we have done is to take evidence and question each party in turn. Although a substantially verbatim transcript of the Committee sittings was available in the first Assembly, that was not what the Committee produced at the conclusion of its sittings. I wonder whether, in keeping with practice in the first Assembly, it would be possible to produce a report on the essence of the key points in each submission and cross-examination; otherwise, it will be difficult to judge how much progress we can make, because each party will simply regurgitate the content of its submission. That would mean that we would be no closer to having a Committee-produced document of the sittings. We should not all split up into our parties and cock a snook at one another again — we need a document from the Committee that each party can buy into as being a report on what was said in each evidence session. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Not only am I depriving Ms Ritchie from attending an important meeting of Down District Council, I allowed you — Ms Ritchie: You are so kind, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are depriving yourself as well, if I recall. We must be mindful of whether we want the political institutions restored or not. That is the first question that each of us around the table must ask of ourselves and of our party. We are not solely responsible to ourselves or to our party. There are people out there who voted for all the parties around this table who want to see what is happening and to see the value of their money, so to speak. Therefore, there must be some level of accountability. If we are seriously interested in — or seriously want — the restoration of the institutions, and if, as we do, perceive as necessary participation in those debates that happen to be relevant to restoration — the findings of this Committee being one such debate — so be it; we shall participate in order to demonstrate to the public that many issues have been discussed. As Alan McFarland said, this is the first time that we have all sat around the same table and identified the obstacles to restoration or the issues that need to be dealt with. That is novel in itself. It is not a backward step, but is something that can be built on. That debate could perhaps identify other issues, elaborate on those that already exist and help this Committee to pave the way for other work that it may need to do. However, our ultimate goal should be the restoration of the institutions. It should be remembered that we have only until 24 November. The SDLP would hate to think that there might be parties in this room, and in the Assembly, that are deliberately trying to obfuscate that process. At the end of the day, we are accountable to the public, who want to see what is happening. 4.15 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Maskey has indicated that he wishes to speak. This issue has been fairly well aired. After Mr Maskey has spoken, I will ask whether there is a proposal and, if so, put it to the Committee, because members have had a good opportunity to make their points. Mr Maskey: For the record, Sinn Féin has no exit strategy and is very much committed to the process, and we will continue to assert that. Seán Farren will make a proposal in a few minutes. However, if it would be inappropriate for officials to try to distil the key outstanding issues from previous debates, so that we can take stock of where we are and decide the future strategy of the Committee, I presume that any or all of the parties could do so. That may be a useful mechanism. As William Hay said, we are coming to a point where we need to take stock and decide our next steps, and it would be appropriate to do that. Sinn Féin believes that there is no point in having a debate in the Chamber to tell Members that we have been talking and airing all those issues. Many issues have been aired, but there have been no decisions or collectivity in how any of those issues are to be taken forward. That would be the only credible basis on which there could be a debate in the Chamber. As much as I want a debate in the Assembly, I do not want to regularly report to my party colleagues that, although the Committee has met several times and there has been much discussion, not one issue has been taken forward. Until we have some progress to report on any of the obstacles, or any steps that can realistically and collectively take us forward, there is no point in allowing 108 Members to rehearse in the Chamber what 20 or so members have been rehearsing in this Committee over the past number of weeks. That is very unfortunate. However, it is still not too late for us, as a Committee, to collect our thoughts, take stock of where we are and take key decisions about what to do next. When that time comes, and there is progress to report, there could be a substantive debate in the Assembly. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I understand that Dr Farren has a proposal. We all know the rules by now; the proposal must be agreed by consensus. If I ask whether there is consensus and any member says “No”, that is it. The proposal will fall, and we will move to another proposal. Dr Farren: Subject to advice on the wording of any motion, I propose that the Committee gives notice that an early debate — without specifying a particular date — should take place in the Chamber. The debate would be on a motion that takes note of what transpires from tomorrow’s visit by the two Prime Ministers, if that would be helpful, and of what has taken place in this Committee. Over a month ago, the Northern Ireland Business Alliance gave a presentation to Members in the Senate Chamber, and the proposals that it put forward were met with general consensus. Various parties suggested that delegations should meet the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and that those delegations should focus on identifying the key elements of an economic regeneration programme. The purpose of a debate in the Chamber would for be parties to suggest proposals for subsequent discussion in a Committee that would be established to take forward those proposals. We have been through that already, but Sinn Fein was not part of it, and that is why it is important that it participates this time. I understand that it is a rather wordy expression of what a motion might consist of, but we need a precise meaning of what is contained in my proposal for a motion to the Assembly as soon as possible after tomorrow, and probably on Monday morning. The Assembly could be convened to discuss it as soon as possible after that if we can agree the terms of a motion, and that would help with our work on the economic regeneration issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have a proposal. Is there consensus on that proposal? Mr O’Dowd: With respect to Dr Farren, that was lengthy and wordy. What are the bones of the proposal? Perhaps one of the Clerks could read them back to me. The Committee Clerk: I could paraphrase a little. This Committee gives notice that an early debate should take place in the Assembly, taking note of the view of the Governments in relation to the work on preparation for government and asking this Committee to continue its work and in particular to consider what work should be done to address economic regeneration. Dr Farren: That more or less captures the essence of what I was saying. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is this a counter proposal? Mr McNarry: No, it is a point of information. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will you leave it to Dr Farren then? Mr McNarry: You might be able to answer it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Certainly if I can. Mr McNarry: The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister may or may not refer to the work of this Committee tomorrow. Are you, or is anyone who is in contact with the Secretary of State’s office, aware of any enquiries that his office may have made on progress in the Committee? The Chairman (Mr Wells): There has been no contact from the Secretary of State’s office to me as Chairman. I do not know if the clerking staff have had any contact. The Committee Clerk: The Secretary of State is in regular contact, I believe, with the Speaker, and the Speaker has asked on occasion how the Committee is going and what work is being done. So there is no formal contact as such, but I believe that the Speaker acts as a conduit. Mr McNarry: I do not want to go too deeply into this, but what has the response been to the Speaker? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The minutes are published once they are agreed, and, from yesterday’s media coverage, it is obvious that the Hansard reports are now being widely distributed as well. Perhps that is one of the ways. Mr Maskey, is this an alternative proposal? Mr Maskey: That last proposal seems to be a convoluted way of saying: “Let us have a debate in the Assembly at some point in the future about something that we are not quite sure about.” It has already been said that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach are here tomorrow, so let us hear what they have to say. This Committee has a job to do, and it does not need to ask anyone how to do that job. We should be doing that job, so I will not be supporting that proposal now. The Chairman (Mr Wells): So there is not consensus. It is absolutely clear that there is no consensus on Dr Farren’s proposal, so that falls. That is how this Committee operates. Having dealt with that, we move on to a future work programme. What do we do in the absence of a debate on the Floor of the House on this Committee? There was a proposal from Mr McFarland that we go back. I just want to draw members’ attention to a practical point. The Hansard for this sitting will not be available until Friday afternoon at the earliest. Obviously tomorrow is a very busy day for the Building, so if you are thinking of taking time to read — Mr McNarry: What has tomorrow got to do with Hansard? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I presume that Hansard is involved. Mr McNarry: How is Hansard involved tomorrow? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sorry, my mistake. I believe that Hansard will not be getting these tapes tonight because of the Prime Ministers’ visit, meaning that it will be too late for its staff to produce the transcript tomorrow. Mr McNarry: Is Hansard attending lots of meetings? Hansard used to be the most efficient organisation in the Building. Since it became involved in these meetings, we have been told that we must wait for the transcripts, and now you are telling us that we must wait until Friday. The Chairman (Mr Wells): These transcripts are not produced in the same manner as those for plenary sittings. It is unusual to receive the Hansard report for Committees on the following day. For example, if this were the Regional Development Committee, we would not get the transcript tomorrow. As members know, we have put the Hansard staff under a bit of pressure to put the transcripts through the system as quickly as possible, but I am told that the earliest that we can receive this transcript is Friday afternoon. The report will be with members on Saturday, and we need to consider how much time to give them to read it through. The proposal was that we would allow members to have time to read the material — Mr McFarland: Logically, if we are not agreed on a debate — and, obviously, we are not — we should not presuppose that the Secretary of State will not decide to have a debate of some sort next week. We have no idea whether he wishes to do that. Once we receive the Hansard report, it would be beneficial to have the opportunity to talk to colleagues about the issues. We will be tied up on Monday morning with our party meetings — Mr McNarry: Ours is on Tuesday. Mr McFarland: Perhaps the answer would be to regroup on Tuesday, having had a chance to think through the issues. I do not know whether that would be too late. We can decide then whether we wish to have further meetings later in the week. Mrs D Dodds: From our party’s point of view — and my colleague made this perfectly clear — there seems to a be a blocking agenda in operation in the Committee. My party will view this issue seriously. We do not want to discuss future business until we have spoken at length with the party officers. William and I are party officers; we want to consult with the rest of the party officers. Alan McFarland expressed a wish to do that as well. Mr Hay: Each of us has to report back to our parties. It does not bode well that we are going to report that there is a blockage in this Committee. There will not be an Assembly debate until one party in particular agrees to that. That is the issue for my party. We cannot remain indefinitely in this Committee. Our party wants to make progress and move the issues on. We should not hold back other Assembly Members. If there were an Assembly debate, the public would have a better understanding of the Committee’s work and the issues that need to be resolved. Unfortunately, there is a blockage. The Assembly is going to be continually stifled, and the parties will have to make up their minds on whether there is any point in the Committee’s continuing to meet. I said earlier that there was no reason why we should not adopt a twin-track approach, with the Committee carrying on with its work and some form of debate taking place in the Assembly. One party in particular has adopted the approach that if it is not done its way, it will not be done at all. That is a tragedy. The other parties around this table need to make up their minds about the future of this Committee. Mr O’Dowd: I have no wish to open up the debate being hinted at by Mr Hay. If Mr McFarland is proposing that we come back on Monday or Tuesday, after the meetings with the two Prime Ministers, to take stock of the reports that have been laid before us, we are more than happy to do that and to plan a way forward that, I hope, will involve all the political parties. 4.30 pm Mr McFarland: Chairman, in the light of what William has said, perhaps the answer is for you to call parties to discuss this on Monday and then perhaps get in touch with you. Clearly if people are not going to come back, there is no point in organising a meeting today for next week that people are not going to go to — or are not in a position to say whether they will attend. Mr Hay: I think the key for us, Deputy Speaker, to move all of this forward is opening the door of the Assembly to allow the other Assembly Members to debate that. And no one party should stop that. That is the key for us. The Chairman (Mr Wells): May I just remind Members that if we cannot reach agreement on any future meetings, we have a slight difficulty in that we are hanging in the air, as it were. So you need to give some thought to that, because I do not believe the Chair has got the power to call a meeting specifically — so it is left hanging. On one practical issue, because I know people want to come in, will parties send amendments to the table of issues by 2.00 pm on Friday to help the staff. Mr McFarland: Is this Hansard? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, the table of issues. Any additions or amendments you wish to make. Any issues you feel you have not included in your original draft. Mr O’Dowd: Sorry, by 2.00 pm? The Chairman (Mr Wells): On Friday to the Committee Clerks, please. Mr McFarland: Chairman, the table was valuable as a quick snapshot of our original, very simple, position papers. The reason I was suggesting we had some sort of report from Hansard, as you would have in a normal Committee, was that all sorts of issues that are not in there have arisen. Now, we are in danger of having a 25-page document here, because if all the parties submit all the issues back and forth that they brought up in their submission, that document will expand dramatically. You will then have a competition in that the party who has not put in 10 pages worth of amendments will feel that it has to put 10 pages in to look the same as all the other parties. One of the issues raised here this morning by Ian Paisley Jnr was a whole lot of dismissing of the Ulster Unionists’ paltry, irrelevant six topics, headings and so on. Now if we are into the business of judging how valid our positions are by how chunky our submissions are, you watch this party. We will give you 25 pages worth. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McFarland, I should add that we did agree as a Committee with consensus that any party who wished to bring additional amendments, extra material or delete from its initial papers which lead to this table could do so. So unfortunately that has been agreed already, and we cannot go back on that. Mr McNarry: Chairman, just on a point of order. We seem to be jumping. Two colleagues here have made very pertinent points. Unless I have missed the point, the relevance of adding this or adding that by Friday would seem to have been missed: I will not be coming back here unless my colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party are of the view that it is worthwhile. Mr McFarland was asking that we would leave our future decisions in abeyance until such times as our party under its own strength should report to you or to the other Chairman or to both our views on progress in this Committee. So I am just wondering what the point is in continuing with business now if that is the view that seems to be prevalent? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have Dr Farren, Mr Maskey, Mr Hay and Mr Ford. The only point I am trying to make is that if we do not reach consensus on any resumption of meetings and it is left hanging in the air, I am unsure as to whether the Chairmen have the power to ever bring this Committee back. It may be that the only person who can do it is the Secretary of State. Mr McNarry: I appreciate that but Mr McFarland was not alluding to your powers but to the courtesy of informing you about whether or not we would be returning to future meetings. Mr Hay: To follow up, Deputy Speaker, on what David has said, what has annoyed everybody is that the SDLP made, I believe, a reasonable proposal. I think everybody was saying that there are a number of things we want to take away and come back and discuss. But once again one political party has just said “No”. It was not even prepared to say: “Well, I hear the proposal, and I am prepared to take it to the party and at least discuss it.” It is just “No”. And the worry for myself and for the Unionist bloc here is that the door is now firmly closed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Seán Farren has been very patient. Dr Farren: The relevance of the table of issues has now been lost. Therefore, unless we can clarify its relevance for our future business, the SDLP will not submit any further points for inclusion in the table. I do not think anyone should put staff to that task. Notwithstanding what has been said about attendance in the future, it would be helpful if we could pencil in, at least tentatively, a meeting for Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning. Meetings can be cancelled and the secretariat advised. However, to ease the burden on you — you say that you cannot exercise the authority to call a meeting if there has been no agreement that one should be called —I suggest that we agree tentatively. If parties decide in the meantime that they should not and will not attend, there will be no further meetings. At least I would know that there might be a meeting on Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning — I would go for Monday afternoon. Mr Maskey: It is imperative that the Committee meets again. I reiterate that Sinn Féin does not rule out debates in the Assembly at some point, but they must be on the basis of some progress having been made. We do not measure progress by the fact that all the parties are sitting in the same room for x number of hours or days. At this stage of the game, in 2006, that is not a measure of progress. Mr McFarland: It is definitely progress, Chairman. Mr Maskey: David mentioned that we have been here for a week, but some people have been in this process for 10 years and perhaps a lot more. Mr McNarry: You can go back as many years as you like, Alex, but we are talking about this process. Mr Maskey: I appreciate that, but this Committee needs to meet. Members around the table say that progress has been made on the issues, but we have not heard an example of that progress. Dr Farren: What about economic regeneration? Mr Maskey: There was a debate, as you well know. Dr Farren: Martin said that we could do it in two days. Mr Maskey: There was a debate in the Assembly, which involved most parties. There was not a very positive outcome to that, but time will tell. We want to have sensible, constructive, substantive debates and discussions with the rest of our colleagues on the basis of work done and progress made. There is absolutely nothing that would preclude Sinn Féin from future debates in the Assembly — far from it. We want to have discussions with the rest of our colleagues. However, we feel that, at the very least, this Committee has a responsibility to meet again to take stock and to identify the progress that has been made. It is not good enough to say that we have made progress; let us identify where progress has been made. Perhaps that is a slight advance on Alan’s suggestion about identifying the issues. Let us identify what we consider to have been progress and then determine what we can do to take that forward. We all say that we want to take this process forward, so let us agree that we will meet again, identify the areas where progress has been made and determine where we go from there. Sinn Féin wants to ensure that we build on any progress that might have been made, but no one around this table is advancing where it has been made. There has been insufficient progress to warrant an Assembly meeting. People here seem to be focused on one outcome — a debate in the Chamber. However, that is not why this Committee is in business. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Ford will speak next, followed by Mrs Dodds. Then I will look for a proposal. Mr McFarland: I second Seán’s proposal. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will take your proposal, Mr McFarland. There will be two more contributions, and then we will try for consensus on that. Mr Ford: We are rapidly reaching the point that proves that after six and a half hours sitting around this table, we are in no mood to agree anything. If we can at least agree a date for another meeting that may be as much as we can manage. It is clear that all parties now have to take stock and have discussions with other members of their teams. Most of those discussions will take place on Monday morning, so we should seek to meet as early as possible — perhaps around 12.30 pm. If we cannot meet on Monday because others want to take all of Monday to consider the issues, then, given the fact that the Business Committee is meeting at lunchtime on Tuesday, perhaps the best suggestion would be to meet at 2.00 pm on Tuesday. I support those who think that we should fix a date now; otherwise we will be in major difficulties if we do not at least have that ahead of us. Mrs D Dodds: It is interesting to see Sinn Féin trying to get some wriggle room on the issue. I suggest that it is trying to sell us something on the never-never. That is what Sinn Féin’s latest positioning really means. The Committee has run into a serious situation. As I said before and repeat for the record: the DUP has come to the Committee and has identified and put forward serious issues that must be addressed. It is time for the rest of our colleagues to be given the opportunity to consider and debate those issues with us. Seán Farren’s proposal was wide-ranging and sensible. Yesterday, I spoke to members of the business community and to our representative on the Northern Ireland Business Alliance, which meets regularly. They are very anxious for the Assembly to get down to work and consider the issues that affect the country’s economy. The blocking-and-wrecking agenda is a serious tactic — so serious that we should now forward details of that position to the Secretary of State. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Both proposals can be forwarded; they are not mutually exclusive. Dr Farren: I propose that the Committee identify Monday afternoon for its next meeting. I am not available on Tuesday and possibly not on Wednesday, but that does not mean that the SDLP will not be represented. Taking cognisance of my timetable, my only point is on consistency — I have attended every meeting, and I do not want to miss the next one. Mr McFarland: I suggest 2.00 pm on Monday, subject to the parties’ agreement. Mrs D Dodds: What will we be meeting to do? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The specific issues to discuss are the outcome of the meetings with the Prime Ministers, the resulting documentation and the results of the party meetings. Everyone has indicated that, having received copies of the Hansard report on Saturday, they will have issues to discuss in depth. I hope that they will have a chance to read it over the weekend and report back to their group meetings. Mr Kennedy: Is the Deputy Speaker aware of the existence of correspondence from the Speaker that indicates how business may proceed in relation to the Business Committee, Assembly plenaries and perhaps the Secretary of State’s wishing the Committee to continue its work? Apparently, a letter from the Speaker is in circulation this afternoon. Can that be clarified? The Committee Clerk: Do you want me to send someone to the Speaker’s Office to ask about that? Mr Kennedy: Yes. My understanding is that a letter, perhaps to party leaders, has emerged from the Speaker’s Office. Mr Maskey: Mr Chairman, you identified two items for an agenda should the proposal be agreed. Neither of those items is relevant to the work of this Committee. We have no difficulty discussing those matters, but, given the way in which people have expressed frustration, the real purpose of the Committee is to take stock of any progress that has been made and to decide on our next steps. We should talk about what will be said tomorrow and reflect on what the parties are saying, but the Committee needs to determine what progress it has made and what its next steps will be. That is the primary purpose of the Committee. 4.45 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McNarry has opted out of his opportunity to speak. Mr McFarland: It is my traditional speech. It is 4.45 pm. We have had a very long day, and I suggest that we should not get into a long discussion. We have a plan for Monday that we can either go with or cancel. Can I suggest that — Mr Maskey: We need to agree on what we are going to talk about next week. I mentioned two items. Mr McFarland: Yes, we can include your suggestions as well as taking stock of our discussions here. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have consensus? Mr Hay: If we are talking about an agenda, one item that should be included is a future debate in the Assembly. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are we happy to discuss that on Monday? OK, we are moving here. Mr Hay: In saying that, it should not be left on the long finger, just because it is on the agenda. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are we agreed on the time: 2.00 pm on Monday in this room? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There will be no lunch. Mr Kennedy: No free lunch. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is good. We are making progress. Mr Ford: Does that mean we can take a break? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, no, we have to push on. Mrs D Dodds: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I did say that a report on the serious nature of the blockage that has been caused in this Committee should be sent to the Secretary of State. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I apologise. Mrs Dodds did make that request. Mr McFarland: Tomorrow, all the parties will discuss the issues with the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. I am not sure that we will get agreement. Mrs D Dodds: It should be formally recorded. Mr McFarland: The difficulty with that is that I am not sure that we would get agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus on Mrs Dodds’s proposal? Mr O’Dowd: No. The Chairman (Mr Wells): No consensus. Mr Kennedy: It will appear in Hansard anyway. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There are a few changes to the minutes of the meeting of 26 June, which was last Monday. For instance, the meeting was suspended at 3.06 pm, not 3.05 pm — I am sure that you all spotted that — and it reconvened at 3.24 pm rather than 3.23 pm. Apart from those changes, are there any other amendments, additions or corrections that members wish to make? Shall we take them line by line or en bloc? Mrs D Dodds: I am looking at point 5 in the minutes. I would like clarification and want to see how these minutes will be presented. If the minutes for 16 June are presented as having everything deleted after 4.47 pm, we will not have registered the fact that there was no consensus on the minutes of the remainder of the meeting. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That issue was noted in Hansard yesterday and was dealt with. Mrs D Dodds: Yes, but that will not appear in the minutes of the meeting. They will simply say 4.47 pm and end. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The fact that you have read it into the record now means that we have covered that point. Mrs D Dodds: Exactly. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are the minutes agreed? Members indicated assent. Mr Kennedy: Set my people free. Mr McFarland: There is one more issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Please note that the letter from the Speaker dated 23 June 2006 has been referred to the Clerk of the Assembly, and, at this stage, we have not received a substantive reply. Adjourned at 4.49 pm. |