Committee on the Monday 10 July 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 2.02 pm. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Members, we will kick off. Everybody is ready. I remind Committee members to switch off their mobile phones as they interfere with the Hansard recording. Do we have deputies or replacements, whichever term you want to use, for each party? Mr O’Dowd: I am standing in for Mr Murphy. Ms Ritchie: I am standing in for Alasdair McDonnell. Mr McCarthy: I seem to be the permanent one, but I am standing in meantime. Mr Kennedy: We prefer the term “replacement”. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Replacement, sorry. Mr Kennedy: “Deputies” has other connotations. Mr A Maginness: I think “deputy” is very good. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): David McNarry is standing in for whom? The Committee Clerk: David McNarry is here for Michael McGimpsey. Mr Kennedy: That is now a permanent change. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members agree the minutes of the meeting of 3 July? Mr Kennedy: There is no “u” in Clogher Valley. Mr McFarland: I was going to ask if Lord Morrow was comfortable with that spelling. The Committee Clerk: Apologies. Mr Kennedy: Is that a County Armagh fellow? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Perhaps that was the Ulster-Scots spelling. The next item is the letter of 4 July 2006 from the Speaker — which members should have in their papers — including directions from the Secretary of State for three subgroups to be set up: on economic issues; changes to the institutions; and the devolution of criminal justice and policing. The direction from the Secretary of State is that the Committee should actually set up those committees. Are there any comments or views? Dr McCrea: My party has instructed me that an economic committee should be set up under the Business Committee, as per the letter of 19 June 2006 to Mrs Bell, the Speaker. The DUP is to meet the Secretary of State to find out exactly how the other two subcommittees fit in with the Secretary of State’s initial instruction to this Committee, which was to scope the issues. I agree that economic issues must be taken forward immediately. That should have happened immediately after the debate under an Assembly motion and in line with the Secretary of State’s suggestion in his letter of 19 June 2006 in which he said that: “If the preference is for a separate committee to be set up by way of a direction from me, I would intend to do so immediately and to invite the Business Committee to determine membership and arrangements for chairing the Committee.” The issues of changes to the institutions and the devolution of policing and justice are more akin to negotiations. The DUP wants to find out exactly where those sit in relation to the Secretary of State’s initial brief, and I will not agree to the setting up of those subgroups. Mr M McGuinness: It would be helpful if the DUP could tell us when the proposed meeting between the Secretary of State and the DUP will take place. I am sure that other parties will be interested in that too because given what we have just heard, it is hard to see how we can sensibly take forward the work with which this Committee has been charged. Dr McCrea: In response to you, Deputy Speaker, I have no knowledge of when the meeting will be, because the party leader and the Secretary of State will arrange it. The DUP is endeavouring to find out how those two subcommittees on policing and justice and changes to the institutions fit in with scoping the issues, because we have scoped and identified a number of issues. As I have said, probably ad nauseam to some, this Committee is not the place for negotiations. I have not been instructed, nor given the mandate, to negotiate, and I am in total agreement with that decision. That is the appropriate and proper stance for the leader and deputy leader of my party and for those of us whom the party has chosen to be a part of the team that negotiates with Government. The purpose of this Committee is certainly not to negotiate. Therefore, the DUP must ascertain how those two subcommittees fit in with the Secretary of State’s initial remit to this Committee. Mr M McGuinness: Nothing that has been said by the Secretary of State vis‑à-vis the establishment of three subcommittees conflicts with any previous correspondence between him and the Speaker, or, indeed, this Committee. We had hoped that we could do some productive work today and see an agreement on the establishment of subcommittees, so that people could begin the serious work of dealing with these issues in the near future. As a result of William McCrea’s contribution, we are not going to be in a position to take things forward. Not only does the DUP seek additional information about the subcommittees relating to the institutions and to policing and justice, but it appears to be totally opposed to the Preparation for Government Committee’s establishment of a subcommittee on the economy and the peace dividend. I am at a loss to see how we can sensibly proceed today. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The main issue from the Committee’s point of view is that we have been directed by the Secretary of State to set up the subcommittees. Parties can decide to go to the meetings or not; that is the current position. It would obviously be beneficial to have all the parties in those subcommittees, but our task today is to set them up. We have been given a clear direction on that. Mr McFarland: The Committee’s mission is clear: we have spent several days discussing our remit, and, as William McCrea has said, identifying issues. However, at our previous meeting, we recognised that many of those issues were substantial ones, and that other concerns might be contained within the broader matter, meriting further investigation or an attempt to expand matters or seek clarity. That was the logic behind the establishment of the subcommittees: not to negotiate, but to try to ensure that we had identified all the different parts of the broader issue. So there was some sense in trying to identify those. The Secretary of State has made two directions on the institutions and on criminal justice, and the other one is in response to his previous intention to set up an economic committee. Is that right? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Mr McFarland: What is the status of these subcommittees? Am I to understand that they are in existence? Either the Secretary of State has directed that they exist, or he is inviting us to set them up. It is unclear, because logically, if he has set them up, then it is a question for parties as to whether they take part in them or not. If it is up to us, then whether or not they should be set up is an issue for discussion around this table. Is it possible to clarify that? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): My information is that the Secretary of State has directed that this Committee set up the subcommittees, and the parties nominate to them. The Secretary of State’s letter is there among the papers. Mr McFarland: The question is whether or not the Secretary of State can direct the parties around this table to do anything. In every other pronouncement that he has made, he has said that it is up to the Committee to elect its Chairs, and to do a, b, c and d. In fact, in one of the instructions here, it says that we have to decide on terms of reference and nominations to membership, etc. Have these been set up — in which case, parties have a choice as to whether they attend them or not? If they are not set up, then the parties have a choice as to whether we set them up or not. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We must discuss the terms of reference for the subcommittees, their membership and arrangements for meetings. The letter is very clear that the Secretary of State is directing the Committee, under paragraph 4 (1) of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 2006, to set up a subcommittee. Mr McFarland: The subcommittees have been set up. We have now to decide whether our parties will attend, and, if so, what the terms of reference and the rules of the game will be. Is that correct? 2.15 pm Dr McCrea: That cannot be right if the subcommittees are to be set up by the Preparation for Government Committee. Mr McFarland: That was my question. Dr McCrea: The subcommittees, therefore, have not been set up. The Secretary of State is directing the Committee to set them up, so it is up to it to do so. If they were already set up, he could not possibly be directing the Committee to set them up. Mr McFarland: That was my question. It is not at all clear whether the Secretary of State is telling the Committee to set up the subcommittees, in which case it can say: “Oh no, you do not”; or whether he has set them up, and Members are being invited to join them, or not, as we see fit. Dr Farren: Once again, I feel that we are close to reaching an impasse. An inconclusive debate will ensue if we continue with these exchanges. My reading of the letter is that this Committee is being directed to set up subcommittees. Of course, it can refuse to obey that direction and refuse to nominate people to attend the subcommittees, if they are established. However, we should now move to setting up the subcommittees as directed. Referring issues back to the Secretary of State and bringing his responses to the Committee will leave us in the same situation that we are in now. Either we decide that we want to move forward or we accept that there is no possibility of us doing so. We should accept that, however regrettable, we have to be directed to do things, and we should establish the three subcommittees. Mr Ford: I agree with William McCrea on the logic of this matter — if not on much else. The letter clearly states that this Committee is directed to set up subcommittees but that it can also decide otherwise. On the fourth page of the letter the Secretary of State repeats his direction regarding methods of reaching agreement, which is consensus interpreted as unanimity. That is a completely contradictory position. It seems illogical for the Secretary of State to direct the Committee to do things but then also direct that unanimity is needed on every issue; unfortunately, the pattern of events in this Committee shows that it frequently attains a certain level of consensus but not complete unanimity. Co-chairman, I know that you and Mr Wells had a meeting with the Secretary of State a couple of weeks ago. Are you planning further meetings with him, or is asking the Speaker to write to him our only method of communicating to him how impossible we find the position in which he has left us? It seems that if this Committee is bound by reaching consensus, meaning unanimity, it is unlikely to agree anything, yet the Secretary of State’s directions leave large gaping holes. I agree with Seán Farren; we should accept the Secretary of State’s direction and do the work that we have been instructed to do. However, if one party objects, we will not be able to do that today. Until the Secretary of State resolves how the Committee reaches decisions, he will have to issue directions to it on absolutely everything. He must ease up a little on the rules of consensus so that it is possible and realistic for the Committee to decide things. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We made no further arrangements to have a meeting with the Secretary of State. The meeting to which you refer was held after the visit by the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister. I am quite certain that if the Committee, through the Clerks, wrote to the Secretary of State, the issue could be dealt with directly. My interpretation of the direction is that, because the Secretary of State has directed that the subcommittees be set up, this issue does not need consensus. He made it very clear to Mr Wells and myself that he could not force Members to attend the subcommittees in the same way that he could not force them to attend a plenary. Those were his words. We have a clear direction from the Secretary of State that the subcommittees be set up. Whether parties wish to attend them or not is up to themselves, although we would like everyone to attend them to make them work. However, that was the direction from the Secretary of State. Perhaps Mr Wells wishes to add to that. Mr Wells: We asked the Secretary of State several times whether establishing subcommittees was a matter for consensus in the Committee or whether it was a done deal. He made it clear that he would make a ruling on two issues: that there would be a plenary on Friday — and neither the Business Committee nor the Assembly had a say in that; although people could not be forced to turn up — and, equally, he made it clear that he would establish subcommittees, although he cannot force anyone to attend them. The two issues were seen in parallel: the first was Friday’s plenary; the second will be the subcommittees. I am absolutely clear on that. We asked him whether the Committee had the right to decide on subcommittees, and the answer was that it does not. Mr McFarland: Chairman, that clarifies my point. Dr McCrea: With the greatest respect, it does not clarify the point. That is not what the Secretary of State says in his letter. We have it in writing, and I will not take dictation from anyone else on the matter. The Secretary of State in his letter states: “I am … directing … that the PFG set up sub-groups” — but the setting up is the responsibility of the Committee. The Secretary of State is not setting up the subcommittees: he is asking or directing us to set them up. With the greatest respect, this Committee will decide whether it sets up subcommittees or not. That is not within the power of the Secretary of State. He is directing us to set up subcommittees. I am informing the Committee that my party will not be setting up subcommittees; there is no consensus in the Committee on setting up subcommittees or on the other issue in that paragraph. Mr M McGuinness: The only course of action open to us is to proceed with establishing the subcommittees. Sinn Féin accepts that subcommittees need to be established. If we are to be involved in the serious work of properly preparing for Government, we must address the issues that are of huge significance to everyone in this room. Some of the issues deal with matters that the DUP raised in its submission, particularly Sinn Féin’s attitude to policing and justice. Establishing a subcommittee to deal with that issue would enable everyone to be fully apprised of how Sinn Féin thinks that it should be taken forward. We believe that whatever outstanding difficulties may be attached to the issue can be resolved. Therefore it is in the interests of every party around the table that a subcommittee be established to deal with that crux issue. All the parties have expressed great interest in the issue of an economic dividend; it certainly exercises many in the business community and throughout society. We should attempt to establish the subcommittees, and parties should make nominations to them, as Sinn Féin intends to. If the DUP, in effect, vetoes that today, we need to go back to the Secretary of State to establish exactly how he intends to take the matter forward. We appear to have a measure of consensus among the Ulster Unionists, the Alliance Party, the SDLP and ourselves on the need to take the work of the subcommittees forward. Therefore, rather than beat about the bush, we should accept Seán Farren’s proposal and try to move the situation forward. If we hit a brick wall, we will have no choice but to go back to the Secretary of State to establish on exactly what basis we can take this forward, with or without one party. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I draw members’ attention to the next paragraph, which states that the membership of the subcommittees should comprise one PFG member from each of the five parties, plus one other member from each party. That is very clear. Mr McNarry: As has happened previously here, no consensus has meant no movement forward, and matters have been redirected back to the Secretary of State. If we operate like that, and given David Ford’s valid points about consensus, how can there be consensus if a subcommittee is set up with one party or more not participating? What is the status of a subcommittee that is not inclusive? It does not appear that you have the basis to set up subcommittees if one party, or more, refuses to participate in them. The rule of consensus has operated throughout and is heavily recorded in Hansard. It has been our practice to talk for hours until the Chairman asks for consensus, and somebody says no, and that has then been the end of the story. We need to know what we could be talking ourselves into or out of. If a subcommittee is weakened because it is not inclusive, it becomes devalued. Finally, you have just said that the Secretary of State directs that the subcommittees should comprise one member from each party that is represented on this Committee and one other member from those parties. Is that a directive? Is there an enforcement with that? Can there be a subcommittee only if it comprises one member from each of the parties that are round this table and their nominees? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There is clear direction that that is how the subcommittee should be set up. When we met the Secretary of State he was very clear that he could not force people to take part, but that, otherwise, the positions would not be filled. Mr McNarry: If the Secretary of State issues a directive as to how the subcommittee should be formed, his directive fails if one member from each party is not represented. Dr McCrea: As far as the economic issues are concerned, the DUP has been urging the establishment of an economic committee since the Assembly debate on the matter. It could have been set up then. Sinn Féin/IRA is the only party that has blocked that subcommittee. Those who talk piously as though they have a genuine concern about economic issues did not think about that in May, which was when the subcommittee was supposed to have been set up. The whole project could have been well progressed, but, of course, that party rejected it. Everyone is bowing to the whims and wishes of Sinn Féin. The Assembly, not the Secretary of State, proposed the idea. He has agreed in his letter that, if we want a separate committee, he is willing to set it up and allow the Business Committee to take it forward and decide on the membership. Let no one try to get off the hook and have some pious concern for economics, especially after 30 years of trying to blow the economy out of existence with bomb after bomb. Let no pious platitudes come from Sinn Féin on that. As far as the other issues are concerned, Sinn Féin is talking about changes to the institutions, and the devolution of criminal justice and policing. Neither of those are the real impediment to the restoration of devolved government here: paramilitarism, decommissioning, criminality, guns and bombs brought down the Executive. We were told that those were dead issues. 2.30 pm Therefore, once again, Sinn Féin is crawling and bowing to those who have a vested interest in keeping the situation as it is. If one views the statement that a Sinn Féin councillor in Cookstown made, one realises that those are not dead issues. He was goading the so-called Real IRA and the Continuity IRA by asking them where their dead bodies are. He said that if they are the real heroes of republicanism, where are their dead bodies of British soldiers and of policemen? When was that statement made? It was reported in the ‘Dungannon News and Tyrone Courier’ last week. Therefore, that is the up-to-date thinking of Sinn Féin — goading the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA into producing dead bodies, in the same way that calling my colleagues and me the Taliban could produce a dead body. Let us be quite honest about it: games are being played here. Members can set up their little subcommittees, but they are not dealing with the issues. Until the problem is solved; until we see that criminality is finished, and finished for good; and until we know that there is credible decommissioning, where all the weapons have been decommissioned, not some of them, we will not enter into devolved government. I stated at the previous sitting that enough weapons to turn Belfast into a garden had recently been found. What about paramilitarism? Remember that the IRA is still in existence. Who made a statement about Mrs McConville after the Police Ombudsman’s findings were announced? It was the IRA — it is still fully in existence. The IRA declared that it was right and fair for it to kill her, because it had decided that she was working with the security forces. People are closing their eyes to the reality, folks, but this party will not do that. We are a devolutionist party, but if we are to have devolved government, it will be something that will stand the test. It will not be knocked down by anyone’s statements or actions. That is the reality, and I make it abundantly clear that my answer to Seán Farren’s proposal is that there is not consensus. We want to find out from the Secretary of State how subcommittees fit in with the work that has been started through the setting up of this Committee. Dr Farren: The DUP needs to make up its mind on the whole issue of consensus; it cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, it says that we should proceed on some issues on which we obviously have no consensus, because that is the way in which it wants to proceed on those issues. On the other hand, it says that there will not be consensus on other issues without its assent. The DUP must operate by one set of rules or else rethink its whole approach to how we determine the Committee’s procedures. Indeed, with respect to some of Mr McCrea’s recent remarks, by preventing progress on the establishment of subcommittees this afternoon, some issues that he has identified will not be aired in the manner in which he thinks it would be most appropriate for them to be aired. Without risking the atmosphere becoming more tense and fraught, my proposal is that we accept the direction from the Secretary of State, move to establish the three subcommittees and begin discussion on the terms of reference and the timings for the subcommittee meetings over the next few weeks. Mr Kennedy: I seek clarification and confirmation from yourself and Mr Wells in your role as Deputy Speakers. I would certainly appreciate Mr Wells’s involvement. Is it your joint understanding that failure to nominate to or failure to attend any of the subcommittees will invalidate their work? What is your take on that, or your interpretation of the letter, following your meeting with the Secretary of State? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): My interpretation is clear, as are the Secretary of State’s words in the letter. If subcommittees are set up, he cannot force members to attend. That does not indicate that they will be considered invalid if not every member attends. Mr Kennedy: Is it your view that non-nomination or non-attendance by any particular group would not invalidate the work of the subcommittee? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That is my interpretation. Mr Kennedy: Mr Wells, it would be helpful if you were to indicate your view. Mr Wells: The context of the discussion was the demand by parties for there to be a plenary. It was made clear to the Secretary of State that the issue had arisen many times in Committee. It was recognised at that point that not all parties would turn up for a plenary; however, neither that plenary nor what was decided at it would be considered invalid. Similarly, the discussion moved to several parties’ demand for subcommittees to be established. The Secretary of State made exactly the same point. He said that he would direct the establishment of subcommittees but that he could not force people to attend. My interpretation was that that did not invalidate the work of subcommittees. I accept that that is not good news for some people in this Committee, but I simply report my understanding of what the Secretary of State said. I put no weight on it, nor state whether I am for or against it. I report only what was said at that meeting, and I left with no doubt that he would make those two directions. That he did so, indicates that our understanding was correct. If the Clerks who were present have any different understanding, I would be interested to hear it, but we were 100% clear on that issue. Mr Kennedy: I accept the interpretation of the two Deputy Speakers. It seems that, although the work would not be invalidated, it could be seriously impeded. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Obviously, we would like all members to attend the subcommittees. It has been left open for Members outside of this Committee to be on subcommittees, because parties expressed an interest in involving their experts in various fields, such as policing or the economy. That is what was meant by subcommittees having 10 members. This Committee was set up by direction of the Secretary of State. The two Chairmen were appointed, not as a result of agreement in Committee but by direction of the Secretary of State. My interpretation is that he has done the same now. He has directed that the subcommittees be set up, and it this Committee’s job to do that. We want all parties to attend, but that is up to the members. The Committee’s job today is to set up the subcommittees and outline their terms of reference. There may have to be agreement around this table on that; alternatively, the subcommittees could set their own terms of reference. Mr M McGuinness: I propose that the motion be moved. I support Seán Farren’s proposal that this Committee accepts that the subcommittees be established. We all know that there will be a vote on that during this meeting. The DUP has expressed its opinion and will vote against the motion. The Secretary of State should inform the Committee of what he intends to do against that backdrop. I assume that he will continue with the establishment of the subcommittees, as he directed, with the support of four of the parties at this table. Although it remains to be seen, if we reach a situation in which the DUP is not prepared to play its part on subcommittees, those subcommittees will effectively be holed below the waterline. It would be much better if the largest party in the Assembly contributed, with the rest of us, to the essential work of dealing with the economic dividend, the institutions, and how we bring about the devolution of policing and justice. We do not need a circular debate; we need to decide how we move forward. I have resisted coming back to some of the things that William McCrea said. I could talk about William McCrea/LVF, but I will not. I could launch into a history of his party leader and his responsibility for the events of the past 40-odd years, but I will not do that either. Dr McCrea: Be thankful that you have not — Mr M McGuinness: I think that — Dr McCrea: — some folks in here have a privilege that could be taken from them. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Could members please deal with the three subcommittees? Mr M McGuinness: Absolutely. That is what I have tried to focus people’s minds on. However, it would be helpful if people would stop misrepresenting the name of the party that the three delegates on this side represent. We represent Sinn Féin and nobody else. Mr McFarland: My understanding is that the remit of the Committee and the subcommittees is to produce a report that will be taken to the Assembly for debate on 4 and 5 September. The logic is that we would work over the summer and produce a report, and that there would be a couple of plenaries on it. If there were to be plenaries on 4 and 5 September, would Martin McGuinness’s party take part in them? Will we do another summer’s worth of hard work here only to have Sinn Féin decide that it is not enough and that it will not take part in those plenaries? Mr M McGuinness: From the outset, I clearly indicated to this Committee, and in Sinn Féin’s meetings with the Secretary of State, the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, that we will play our part in any subcommittees because we believe that there is important work to be done. Sinn Féin passionately hopes that progress will be made and that the Preparation for Government Committee will be in a position, on the basis of the productive work that is being done, to put forward issues for debate in the Assembly. That is our position. Mr McFarland: Is that a commitment to take part in debate? We have had discussions on “productive” work before. Some Members would argue that although we have not made enormous progress in the past five weeks, we have made some progress, but not enough for Sinn Féin. Must we wait until September for adjudication on what is or is not progress? By then, we might have joined the subcommittees in good faith and worked hard on them, only for Sinn Féin to judge that not enough work had been done or that not enough commitment had been shown for it to take part in a plenary. Mr M McGuinness: Unlike the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP and the Alliance Party, we are not content to go along with what has been the DUP’s game plan from the beginning: the institutions would not be re-established until the DUP decided that it was ready to go into Government. All the informed opinion suggests — although I do not accept the informed opinion — that the DUP might be prepared to do that some time next year. The Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister clearly stated that 24 November is the cut-off point; that is the backdrop against which we are working. I have said from the outset that we would involve ourselves in the Preparation for Government Committee and in subcommittees but that we would have to satisfy ourselves that we were dealing with a political party — the largest unionist party — that was shaping up to do a deal with the rest of us to restore the institutions. If, at the end of the summer, we feel that the DUP is not shaping up to do a deal, we will not participate in the type of talking shop that all the other parties participated in last Friday. 2.45 pm Lo and behold, everyone came out saying that it had been a waste of time. Sinn Féin will not waste its time trying to fool people that we are here working when work is not being done. The talking shops in the Assembly go on against a backdrop of no one knowing when the institutions will be restored or when the DUP will be prepared to come on board. That leaves us with no option other than to make it clear, not only to the DUP but to everyone on this Committee, that we want to see progress. A large part of our judgement on any progress will be based on whether there is real engagement between all parties on this Committee. One could argue that the mere fact that Hansard, for all sorts of reasons, has been brought into play, works against the initial idea that this Committee might produce a relationship between all parties that would move the process forward. To be honest, when I hear the DUP’s contributions, I hear people playing to the gallery. Everyone knows that someone will hand the Hansard report of this meeting to Mark Devenport or Martina Purdy, and it will be all over the news. Will we get engagement with the DUP on that basis? I hope and pray that we will, but it is most unlikely. Whether committees are established will also play a big part in our coming to a judgement on whether progress has been made. If they are established and the DUP does not play its part, whatever work we engage on in the Committee is in danger of being vetoed by the DUP. However, I am not fully satisfied that the DUP would be able to do that, because a case can be made that some important work can be done, which would be of huge benefit to both the Irish and British Governments as we move this process forward. If the institutions are not restored by 24 November 2006, we move into a wholly new situation, wherein the economy and many other issues relating to the Assembly will come into play in an important way. We must establish, at this meeting, whether we attempt to set up subcommittees. I support Seán Farren’s proposal to do so, and I am sure that there is much support from the other parties around the table. We should vote on that, send the result to the British Secretary of State and consider how we take forward the situation, against the declared aim of the DUP to frustrate the efforts not only of Sinn Féin but of the two sovereign Governments. Mr Kennedy: That was a long and convoluted answer to Alan McFarland’s perfectly legitimate question. When it is all boiled out of the pot, I understand the answer to be a highly cynical definite maybe. Mr M McGuinness: You can interpret it in whatever way you wish. I have made a very honest contribution. Mr Kennedy: I am giving you an honest assessment of your answer. Mr M McGuinness: That is fair enough. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I remind members of the short timescale to meet the deadlines. We have to set up three subcommittees that must meet and report to this Committee, which must then compile a report for plenaries on 4 and 5 September 2006. It is up to this Committee whether those reports are prepared. If there is nothing to report, that is another issue. Within those three subcommittees there is the opportunity and space to deal with all the issues that Rev McCrea raised as obstacles to progress. Dr McCrea: Absolutely not, and, with the greatest respect, it is not your place to lead this Committee or to act as if you were the Secretary of State. The DUP will make up its own mind. The issues must be dealt with. It was said earlier that we either fiddle to Sinn Féin’s tune or it will not play its part in the Assembly Chamber. That is exactly what Sinn Féin said. The DUP is saying that the decision to form a working group to deal with economic issues was taken by the democratically elected Members of the Assembly. That is why we said that it was different, as did all the parties that agreed to it. All I say is that anyone waiting for us to have some cosy love-in with Sinn Féin has another thing coming. We cannot play around the edges with wee subcommittees that do not deal with the real, cardinal issues. Why does Sinn Féin want a policing subcommittee? Because it has its own agenda on policing and justice. Until we deal with the issues of criminality and paramilitarism, guns and all the rest of it, the last thing to be dealt with will be policing and justice. Make no mistake about it; those matters will have to be dealt with either here or by the Government. They are not dead issues. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Mr McCrea, I will remind you of the Secretary of State’s other direction, which is that it is the Chairs’ job to facilitate — Dr McCrea: Facilitating is one thing; this was going further than facilitating. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I do not believe that it is. It sets out very clearly the timetable laid down by the Secretary of State, if we are to do the work that we are supposed to as the Preparation for Government Committee. That is our role, and we need to get the subcommittees in place, to establish the terms of reference for their meetings, and to report back to this Committee. We have a proposal to set up those subcommittees. I put that to the Committee. Is there a consensus? There is obviously no consensus, but we do have a clear direction from the Secretary of State to set the subcommittees up, whether or not the parties attend them. Therefore, I will proceed to that position and deal with the terms of reference for those three subcommittees. Are we agreed to do that? Mr McFarland: We have a problem here. We either approach this in a positive state of mind and in good faith, in an attempt to take things forward, or we do not. The DUP clearly has a difficulty with this, and unless it changes its mind it is not taking part. It objects to one of the three subcommittees for which a directive has been given. Either way, from what William said this morning, it will not take part in any of the subcommittees. So the DUP refuses to soldier, as Sinn Féin refused to soldier last Friday by not showing good faith and not taking part in the plenary, whatever it thought of the outcome. People will not play the game, and we will not get anywhere. It was interesting that the Secretary of State’s letter sounded more robust about whether any one party was able to stand in the way of the general consensus of the meeting. However, he copped out by encouraging people to try to seek a way forward. Until the rules of the game allow a majority — which some parties demand — we must abide by consensus. If the DUP does not agree, we are going nowhere unless the Secretary of State changes the rules of the game. There is no point in us spending any more time beating around the bush or making speeches. It seems that we will not get off the ground unless the Secretary of State produces different rules under which we should operate. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): To clarify the issue of the validity of the subcommittees, last Friday’s plenary went ahead regardless of whether parties attended. The same applies to the subcommittees, as far as the Secretary of State is concerned. The plenary went ahead; the Secretary of State gave a clear direction that it should happen — and it happened. He gave a similarly clear direction with regard to the subcommittees, and they will happen. The role of this Committee is to set them up, regardless of whether Members decide to attend them. That is exactly what the Secretary of State said, and that took place. Mr McNarry: We should listen carefully to what Alan McFarland said. If the Secretary of State comes up with some rules, does he include retrospective majorities? It is OK to talk about the plenaries, and how people were not forced to go to them, but this Committee tried to support a consensus-led committee on the economic question, there was no consensus for it, and it fell. It has been batted about like a tennis ball and has come back here. That is unfair. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We now have a direction to set it up. Mr McNarry: We now have a direction to set up a subcommittee, which is contrary to the consensus or the majority agreement when the Committee last discussed the issue. We must try to get a hold of the management of this; otherwise I will ask, retrospectively, why we cannot deal with the economic issue in the way in which we wanted to a week or so ago. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): If the Committee takes control of setting up the subcommittees, then we will be in control. However, if we continue to bat the matter back to the Secretary of State for further direction, we are simply handing power back every time it is handed to us. Mr McNarry: With all due respect, Chairman, the Secretary of State is the cause of this problem. He set the game rules, and the issues go back and forth to him. He has steadfastly refused to give either the Business Committee or this Committee an opportunity to run its own affairs. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is his Assembly. Mr McFarland: The question is; are we operating by consensus or not? The Secretary of State has invited us to set up subcommittees, and no consensus has been reached. Unless the Secretary of State sets them up and says: “We have moved away from consensus now, and I will accept a majority agreement from four out of five parties”, how do we set up subcommittees without consensus? For example, if four out of five parties wanted to have a plenary in the middle of August, and Sinn Féin objected, it would not matter; the plenary would go ahead. Similarly, if four out of five parties agreed to set up subcommittees, and the DUP objected, the subcommittees would be set up. However, under the current rules of the game, we cannot do that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I am no great expert on English directions, but my interpretation is that the Secretary of State has not invited us to set up subcommittees, he has directed us to do so. Mr McNarry: What happens if we cannot? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): He has not raised the issue of consensus on setting up subcommittees. He has directed us to set them up. Mr McNarry: To be consistent, Chairman, he has to. Mr Storey: Deputy Chair, if there was a plain interpretation of the Queen’s English, it would be obvious to everybody — Mr M McGuinness: Can members simply interject, or do they need to put their hands up? Mr Storey: I had my hand up for some time. I will not take direction from the Member who is sitting across this table; I take direction from the Deputy Speaker. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): You had your hand up before. Mr Storey: Yes, I had. There is a difference between a determination and a direction. It is abundantly clear that the Secretary of State determined that only two obligations were to be fulfilled: one, that there should be a plenary on 7 July and, two, that the Assembly should rise for recess on 7 July and not return until 4 September. The Secretary of State has given a direction to the Committee, and the rules of this Committee are such that it must operate on the basis of consensus. From what my colleague Rev McCrea has said, there is no consensus. That is very simple and clear, and it does not take an Einstein to work out our current situation. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have not had consensus on many things. The Secretary of State gave us a clear direction to set up this Committee, and, because we could not reach agreement on who should chair the Committee, he gave us a clear direction on that, too. This is where the interpretation comes in. We had a clear direction to have a plenary on Friday, and we have a clear direction on subcommittees: one has happened, the other has not. Mr Ford: Mervyn Storey is certainly not right to say that there is a difference between a determination and a direction. The language changes in the course of the Secretary of State’s letter, and they mean the same thing. It may or may not be directed that there should be three subcommittees. However, if we are still required to operate on the basis of consensus, I am not sure how we are supposed to agree the terms of reference, the membership, the chairmanship, the procedures and the other matters on our agenda. The Secretary of State has left us in an impossible position. Unless we operate this afternoon as if four to one is an adequate consensus — which has not been the procedure to date — we can take no further decisions. We require the Secretary of State either to change the rules on consensus or to issue directions on those matters. 3.00 pm Mr M McGuinness: There is no consensus on the establishment of subcommittees, and I find that particularly disappointing. Since the Secretary of State has gone so far as to direct the establishment of subcommittees, he should have had some indication that a level of consensus would be required to establish them. I do not know whether the Democratic Unionist Party gave the Secretary of State any commitments vis-à-vis their willingness to co-operate in the establishment of subcommittees. It is clear from today’s meeting that the DUP has set its face against such a proposal. The only thing that we can do is send a report to the Secretary of State to tell him that the DUP has set its face against the establishment of subcommittees. He then needs to come back to us with a remedy. I say that in the knowledge that, without the DUP, those subcommittees can achieve very little. The dilemma is one for the Secretary of State. My proposal is that we send a report of this meeting to the Secretary of State telling him clearly that the DUP has set its face against the establishment of subcommittees and await his reply. There is not much point in going ahead with terms of reference until we get an indication from the Secretary of State on how he intends to deal with the situation. Mr Kennedy: It appears that we are fast approaching the deadlock that I indicated at our previous meeting. Rather than deadlock matters completely today, we should refer to the direction from the Secretary of State, with all its anomalies, and ask him for further clarification. In the meantime, Dr McCrea has indicated that the DUP will meet the Secretary of State. Perhaps progress might emerge from that meeting that will assist the Preparation for Government Committee. I suggest that we move forward on that basis and then adjourn any other business. Dr Farren: At this point, adjournment is virtually all that we can do, although I regret the impasse at which we have arrived. Realistically, however, any subcommittees that were established without full consensus would not have led us to a satisfactory position. Is it not more likely that the Secretary of State, having been made aware of what transpired — or did not transpire — this afternoon, might establish the subcommittees directly himself and invite the parties to nominate members to them? Waiting on the outcome of a meeting between the DUP and the Secretary of State as if that will resolve our problems is not a plan in which we should put our trust. The DUP may want a meeting with the Secretary of State, but our business is to let the Secretary of State know the position. I imagine that he is likely to establish subcommittees by direction himself. He will set the terms of reference, will invite nominations and allow the subcommittees to indicate when they can meet — that may be all the discretion left to them. They could report matters to this Committee, and through it to the Assembly, for debate in September. That seems to be the only realistic prospect, given the impasse. Mr McCarthy: In reply to Mr Kennedy, Willie McCrea did not give the Committee any indication as to when they were going to meet the Secretary of State. God knows when it could be, and we do not have the time. Therefore, I think that what Seán Farren has said is sensible. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have two proposals in front of us. The Committee Clerk: Martin’s proposal was that the Committee send a report to the Secretary of State indicating that the DUP has set its face against the establishment of subgroups. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus on that? Members indicated assent. The Committee Clerk: Danny’s proposal is that we should refer the direction back to the Secretary of State for clarification of the anomalies raised during the meeting, and that we now adjourn. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): He may need to actually set them up. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for me, Mr Wells, and the two Clerks to meet the Secretary of State again so that we are clear. Mr Kennedy: If the other Deputy Speaker is content with that, we do not have any objection. Mr Wells: Yes. Ms Gildernew: Could you bring back something in writing? Some of the difficulty today has been around interpretation. Mr Storey: It should also be noted that we would not agree with any interpretation placed on a referral from this Committee by Sinn Féin as to what our position is or is not on that matter. It may be convenient for Sinn Féin to go into the public domain and convince its troops that somehow it was able to get the Committee to have a consensus on the position that the DUP has set its face against a particular course of action. We are not taking any direction from Sinn Féin as to what our position is, other than has been stated by Rev McCrea at this meeting. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have a consensus on that. Do we have consensus on Danny Kennedy’s proposal? Mr Kennedy: I am happy to have the add-on. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): OK. Are we agreed on that? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That leaves us where we can do nothing but adjourn. Adjourned at 3.08 pm. |