Committee on the Wednesday 26 July 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.10 am. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will get cracking. We have been asked not to wait for the Alliance Party delegation, but they will be here. Who are the deputies? Ms Ritchie: I am representing Dr McDonnell. Mr O’Dowd: I am representing Michelle Gildernew. Mr Buchanan: I am representing Rev Dr William McCrea. Mr Dallat: I am representing Mr Durkan. Lord Morrow: Diane Dodds will be here later, and she will be representing Ian Paisley Jnr. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Apologies have been received from Mr Kennedy who is on holiday. Mrs Dunwoody is also on holidays, so the Clerks for today’s hearing are Principal Clerks Mrs Pritchard and Martin Wilson. Hansard has been effective in producing the report on the meeting of 24 July. Does anyone have any amendments or additions to make to it or the minutes? Mr O’Dowd: The comments attributed to me on page 18 — while I wholeheartedly agree with them — were spoken by my colleague Mr Murphy. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That would be more properly addressed by contacting the Hansard staff and making certain that it is corrected before it becomes the official version that goes on the website. However, you have put it on the record, and that is a handy way of letting the folk upstairs know that the correction should be made. Is everyone else content? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I was not present on Monday, but I understand that the Committee decided not to form the two additional subgroups and that the subjects that they were to cover would be dealt with by full meetings of the Preparation for Government (PFG) Committee. The Clerks have advised the Secretary of State of that decision, and he is content with that. He says that that is in accordance with his direction. Mr McFarland: Perhaps I am being dozy here, but it states in item 3 of the minutes: “It was agreed that the Committee should proceed to set up the subgroups on Changes to the Institutions and Devolution of Policing and Justice”. I thought that the Committee had agreed not to set up the subgroups but that those issues would be dealt with by the PFG Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Dr Farren came in at that stage and made his proposal. He felt that as one party at least would not be attending, there was no sense in going ahead with the subgroup, so he proposed that it would be dealt with by the full PFG Committee. Mr McFarland: Are we dealing with the minutes of the last meeting? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr McFarland: It says in the minutes that this Committee, which operates by consensus — including the DUP — agreed that the Committee should proceed to set up subgroups on institutions and policing and justice. The Committee did not agree to set up subgroups; it objected to subgroups. It agreed to deal with policing and justice and institutions in this forum. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You did agree to set up the subgroups and then changed your mind. Lord Morrow: That is not right. We were never asked to agree to set up subgroups. We were never asked that question. The Secretary of State made a directive that they would be set up, therefore we were not asked to approve or disapprove them. We said that we would not nominate. Dr Farren: It would more accurately reflect what happened by saying that we nominated members to the subgroups. Mr McFarland: That is not what is stated in the minutes. Dr Farren: I know that. It would be more accurate to leave out “agree” and say that we nominated members to the subgroups. Since the minutes only record decisions, it would be right to say that we nominated members. Those parties who were content to nominate members did so. However, I made my proposal when it was discovered that there would be no participation by one party. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You could get round this by deleting the first paragraph of item 3. My reading of the situation is that, when it became apparent to Dr Farren that one party was not going to nominate, another motion was more or less tabled. Mr McFarland: That may well have been the case. However, in order for paragraph 3 of the minutes to state that it was “agreed”, consensus must have been reached that the Committee should proceed to set up subgroups. I arrived late to the meeting, but I was present to hear members make it clear that they were not going to set up subgroups. Therefore, the minutes should not say that there had been any agreement on the subgroups. 10.15 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Morrow made it very clear that the DUP would not be nominating. Mr McFarland: I suggest that we take that line out. If someone from outside the Committee were to read it, they would think it really odd that the Committee had agreed by consensus — because it operates by consensus — to set up the subgroups and then had two hours of rows about not wanting to set them up. The first paragraph does not make sense. Dr Farren’s suggestion should be adopted: the paragraph makes sense only if it reflects the fact that members simply nominated to the subgroup. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members content with that proposal? Lord Morrow: That is not a true reflection. The Committee was never asked to agree or disagree on the setting up of subgroups. The Committee received a simple direction from the Secretary of State that subgroups would be set up: the DUP simply said that it would not nominate to them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any other comments? Mr Morrow, are you objecting to the deletion of that comment? Lord Morrow: It should clearly state that the Secretary of State directed that subgroups be established. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The difficulty that I have with that, Mr Morrow, is that on page 1 of Hansard, Mr Molloy, who was in the Chair, said: “It was to be the subgroup on devolution of criminal justice and policing. It is now to be called the subgroup on devolution of policing and justice. Can we proceed to set up those two subgroups at this stage?” It continues: “Members indicated assent.” Then Mr Molloy called for nominations. Lord Morrow: What happened then? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Farren nominated Mr Bradley and himself, and three of the parties provided nominations. The difficulty is that “Members indicated assent” suggests that consensus was reached. Mr Murphy: There was consensus to begin the proceedings to set up a subgroup, and that is when the parties nominated. David McNarry said that the UUP would nominate by close of play the following day, and the DUP said that it would not nominate. We then discussed ways of working around that. If one is splitting the difference, we agreed to begin the proceedings to have the subgroups in operation, and that is when the nominations were asked for. We did not have to agree on the establishment of subgroups because they were already established. The Chairman (Mr Wells): How do we get around this? Lord Morrow: Mr Deputy Speaker, why is there no mention of the Secretary of State’s directive in the minute? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is not mentioned because at the previous meeting we spent about 40 minutes assessing the exact meaning of the directive and the accompanying letter. By that stage, it was taken that people were very clear about what the Secretary of State meant. Lord Morrow: Yes, but to get an understanding of the situation, it must be re-established in the minute that, following the Secretary of State’s direction, subgroups were to be established. The Chairman (Mr Wells): A phrase could be inserted stating that the Committee agreed to implement the Secretary of State’s direction to set up the subgroup. Lord Morrow: We were not asked to agree that. You do not have to agree a directive, Mr Deputy Speaker. We were given no choice in the matter. We were told to get on with it and make nominations, and parties started to do that. Dr Farren: I would have thought that this problem could be very easily solved. Could we say that it was agreed that nominations be invited from the parties? That is what happened. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Would that be acceptable? Dr Farren: The nominations that were made could be recorded. Lord Morrow: It should be recorded that the Deputy Speaker asked for nominations. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Of course, Lord Morrow, your remarks will be put on the record anyhow, and will now appear in Hansard. Are folk happy with that suggestion? The Deputy Speaker asks for nominations to the subgroups on institutions and on the devolution of criminal justice and policing. Can we have agreement on that in order to get the minutes out of the way? Mr M McGuinness: Does it matter one way or the other? It is down to whether the DUP is prepared to accept that formula. Lord Morrow: We are happy as long as the minutes clearly reflect that we were never asked to agree or disagree anything. The problem arose when we said that we would not nominate. Mr M McGuinness: That is clear enough. We appear to be agreed on a form of words that has just been suggested by the Deputy Speaker. I suggest we sensibly move on. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Have we consensus? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Good. We have agreed the minutes. I have allowed Mr McFarland to come back in on the minutes when, really, we had gone past them. A nice try and it succeeded. We have reported to the Secretary of State and he is content that we go forward as we have planned, so there does not seem to be any difficulty there. On tab 2 of your papers the Clerks have helpfully devised a table of issues raised by parties during the presentations and the submissions. Mr McNarry: Before we get into that, may I raise an issue. On the radio this morning, it was related that the Secretary of State had set up a group to deal with rates, and in particular with industrial derating. Should we ask the Secretary of State whether he intends to set up other groups outside the remit of this Committee? I ask because industrial derating has been discussed by this Committee and forwarded to the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland, which has it in mind to invite that lobby group on industrial derating. I am totally in favour of that group being set up by the Secretary of State. However, on the one hand, he directs us to carry out work; on the other, he meets people and sets up groups without acknowledging to this Committee what he is doing. In view of the long list of issues that we have now to discuss, would it be proper to seek his mind and ask whether he is engaged in any issues outside this Committee and, if so, would he make us aware of them? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland meets tomorrow morning at 10.00 am and I am in the Chair. Derating is a relevant and important issue for the work of that subgroup. It is any Committee member’s right to raise it first thing tomorrow morning; and if the Committee votes by a majority to do so, it could ask the Secretary of State to give evidence on this issue so that Committee members can express whatever concerns they may have. It is not a matter with which the PFG Committee should be dealing directly. Mr McNarry: Chairman, in case you misunderstood, I meant that it is relevant because the subgroups are under the auspices of this Committee. That is why I raise it. I am not raising it as an issue for this Committee, although tomorrow I intend to do what you suggest. However, as we move down the long list, it appears inconceivable for the Secretary of State to speak to others about these issues with a view to setting up groups, as he has done on the derating issue. It would only be proper for us to seek his mind. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, if your concern is that, as we work through these issues, we find that the Secretary of State has set up an ad hoc group to deal with some or all of those matters. It is unlikely that we will start the work today, but as soon as we do, we could well agree to write to the Secretary of State. Mr McNarry: I appreciate that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I can see the difficulty that that causes. Of course, the Secretary of State may have made that decision before he was aware of the progress that the Committee has made. Mr McNarry: I do not think so. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Murphy, do you have the list? Mr Murphy: Yes. Over the past week, we have received three broad remits for the subgroups, one of which is the economic subgroup referred to by David McNarry. It strikes me that the bulk of items on the list fall into those three categories. Perhaps we should identify those items, allocate them to categories, decide what is left over and agree a focused series of meetings to deal with the outstanding issues. The Committee has agreed to deal with two of those issues — the devolution of policing and justice and the establishment of the institutions. Some of those items rightfully belong to the economic subgroup, which is meeting. We should identify which of the remaining items fall into the other two broad remits and see what is left, so that we can set an intensive timetable of work to achieve some progress on those two issues before the end of the summer. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Clerks have helpfully drawn up a table. I will talk through it while it is being distributed. We have tried to bring the issues under four main headings: Government; institutional issues; law and order issues; and rights, safeguards, equality issues and victims. It is purely for guidance, but it might help us to focus on how to deal with the issues. I have had a brief look: some of issues sit comfortably in the groups, while others are perhaps open for debate. Members might want to consider the table to decide whether it shows a way forward in tackling the issues in groups of eight to 11. Mr McFarland: The Secretary of State tried to put three areas into subgroups. The Committee decided to deal with two of those, but that does not mean that they cannot be dealt with separately. One could argue that the safeguards and rights issues would sit well in the institutional issues category, in that they are related directly to the agreement and the comprehensive agreement and involve setting up institutions. For example, the bill of rights is related directly to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which is part of the institutional side. Policing and justice and the institutions could be dealt with in alternate Committee meetings. That would package things up easily. Mr Ford: I take the point made by both Conor and Alan. However, the matters covered under the final heading of rights, safeguards, equality and victims are distinct and discrete. The needs of victims and building a shared future do not sit that easily with discussions on the structure and architecture of the institutions. There would be merit in keeping those matters out as, in effect, a fourth pillar. Dr Farren: I had begun a similar exercise and I came up with broadly the same headings. Human rights, parades and equity issues form a cluster, which can be addressed as a whole. I identified victims and the past as a separate matter, but institutional issues, policing and justice, paramilitarism, criminality and decommissioning — as far as we can deal with them — flow from the Committee’s remit. As I said, I identified human rights, parades and equity issues and victims and the past as two further subheadings. However, we should try to get under way with the first two, which, by common assent, are at the top of the list. We will not get any more than an interim report finalised before the end of August. 10.30 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): Part of the reason why we were constrained was that if we had set up subgroups to deal with the issues, it would have taken two weeks for us to consider their reports. However, the PFG Committee will produce the report, so that will free up some time. We could produce an interim report in September charting the progress and then perhaps report a month later. That would relieve some of the pressure we have in dealing with the issues more carefully. Dr Farren: The Committee should have some type of report ready by the end of August whether it be an interim or final report. That will take a great deal of time, and the Committee will probably have to meet twice a week for quite some time to get through all the issues that are covered by the various headings insofar as it is possible to make any progress in the next four weeks. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any other views? There seems to be slight disagreement about the groupings. Mr McFarland: I am happy to go with that grouping. I was simply trying to keep it logical on the basis of what we have discussed before. It will be a matter for the Committee to decide whether we deal with those headings in turn. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There seems to be some support for Mr Ford’s view that “rights” and “safeguards” do not sit easily under the heading “Institutional issues”. Lord Morrow: Would it facilitate the meeting if we had a short adjournment to let the groups retire and go through the list for 10 minutes? It would be helpful to come back after each group has discussed the issues. Mr McNarry: I have no objection to what has been said, but I express my sensitivity at seeing “Parades” under the heading of “Law and order issues”. That is not where I would put it. Lord Morrow: That is the sort of issue that an adjournment would facilitate. Mr McNarry: That would be helpful. I am pleased that the list has been drafted and it is well intended, but we need some cohesive thinking that parades are not a law and order issue. Mr M McGuinness: Does the member think that we should put “Parades” under the heading of “Hillwalking”? Mr McNarry: We had a discussion on walking, and I would prefer to see the heading “Walking”. I am glad that the Member has learned from that discussion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee has a precedent of granting a brief adjournment to any group that requests it. That is entirely acceptable. Mr McFarland: The category “Other” covers “Other issues raised with the Government which require delivery for the return of devolution”. It would be helpful if those who have raised those issues with the Government would let us know what they are. Presumably, unless there is something magical that we have not spotted yet, they are already reflected in this list. All parties have made their submissions and the issues have been listed. What could appear under the category “Other”? The Chairman (Mr Wells): That was part of the DUP’s submission. The party may wish to expand on that following the adjournment. Mr McFarland: Most of the topics come under one of the headings, unless there is something that no one has thought of. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am sure that the DUP will expand on that when it returns. The Committee was suspended at 10.33 am. On resuming — 10.55 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): The meeting is reconvened. Members have had a chance to look at the list. As I have not heard any dissention on the principle of trying to group items, can I take it that members are happy that we go down the list and make sure each is in the right pocket, as it were? Obviously the first item on the list will be referred to the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland, and the first section could also be dealt with by the subgroup. The Secretary of State has made reference to the Programme for Government and we will come back to that later as a separate item. Are we content that the Belfast Agreement is an institutional issue? Lord Morrow: Could I have clarification? I missed what you said in relation to Government. The Chairman (Mr Wells): This matter arose at a previous meeting. The Secretary of State referred three sets of issues for discussion by subgroups, but he has also referred to the Programme for Government separately in a letter dated 3 July, which is in your pack. At two previous meetings, Mr McCrea made it clear that he objected to this Committee dealing with that issue, so it will be dealt with as a separate issue today because of the strong views on the subject. I suggest that we come back to it later, because if we start debating it now we will be very slow in dealing with the other issues. Lord Morrow: The DUP does not see items 2 and 3 as blockages to the restoration of devolution. We believe that the priorities for Government and the Programme for Government come after devolution and will be worked out by those who will be forming the Government. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There will be an opportunity to make that point at the end of the meeting. Do we accept that the Belfast Agreement is an institutional issue? Lord Morrow: A very bad one, but yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Dr Farren, do you accept that? Dr Farren: There are institutional issues within the Good Friday, or the Belfast Agreement. The Belfast Agreement is much more comprehensive than the institutional issues that it contains. It deals with constitutional and human rights issues. As long as it is clear that it is only the institutional matters that fall under this heading then, in one sense, specific reference to it is redundant, but I am happy to keep it there as long as that is what is understood by it. Aspects of the Good Friday Agreement come in under each of the headings. If we are discussing institutional issues, let us confine ourselves to institutional issues of the agreement under that heading, and deal with the human rights issues, and any other issues, under the appropriate headings. Mrs D Dodds: The Belfast Agreement is an extremely important issue for unionists. My party has never supported the Belfast Agreement, and, indeed, the majority of unionists do not now support the Belfast Agreement. Any committee set up to look at the blockages to devolution, which did not take into account the Belfast Agreement, and the lack of support within the unionist community for the Belfast Agreement, would be denying reality. Therefore it is important that we discuss these issues. Mr M McGuinness: A number of parties were involved in the discussions that took place during the greater part of the autumn of 2004: the British Government, the Irish Government, Sinn Féin and the Democratic Unionist Party, albeit at some distance. Anyone who was there could come to no other conclusion than that, during those discussions, the Democratic Unionist Party accepted the Good Friday Agreement as the template for future politics on this island, and specifically in the North. 11.00 am The Good Friday Agreement has effectively been accepted as an international agreement between two Governments. The broad headings allow, as they should, all parties on the Preparation for Government Committee to discuss any issue of their choice. The DUP can spin that how it likes, but the agreement is the template from which all participants on this Committee are working. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I have a slight concern: we are not debating the merits, or otherwise, of the Belfast Agreement. If we go down that route, we will occupy the next six hours. Mr M McGuinness: That is why I do not intend to prolong my contribution, except to say that all participants have a right to express their views and opinions. Let us not fool ourselves, however — the template from which we are all working is the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. After all parties met with the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister in Parliament Buildings a number of weeks ago, the two leaders issued a joint communiqué that clearly indicated that the job of work ahead for all of us was to restore the institutions by 24 November 2006. The Secretary of State set out a programme of work. That is why we are sitting on this Committee, and that is the basis on which we will move forward these discussions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): All we need to establish is whether all Committee members agree that the institutional issues in the Belfast Agreement — it would almost be better to put institutional issues in brackets after each point — is a subject that falls neatly into the institutional issues section and should be debated in that category. We do not require people to suggest what they feel that the Belfast Agreement means. Is there any objection to that? Mr McFarland: Chairman, may I suggest that you ask whether there are additions to be made to the list or points that can be moved elsewhere? If you go down the list, one by one, each party feels that it must say something about each of them, and we will be here until 5.00 pm. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I suggest that members comment only on whether they feel that a particular point should be included in that category, rather than what they feel about the issue. There will be ample opportunity for comment when we debate the issues. Do members accept that the Belfast Agreement should be there? Do they accept that the Civic Forum should be there as an institution? What about the comprehensive agreement? Mr McFarland: May I suggest that you ask the parties which points they do not want included? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do all members feel that every point from 1 to 11 is totally relevant, should be there and should not be moved? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): OK, so we believe that every point under institutional issues should remain. Does anyone have any additions, or has anything been missed? Mr Ford: Given all the Alliance Party’s remarks on the subject, particularly since November 2001, I am disappointed that the Assembly voting system is not listed as a separate point. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, that could come under point 7 on the list. We hold the view that if a certain issue is important to a party, it should be considered. You are talking about the d’Hondt voting system. Mr Ford: We have made it clear that it is a key issue. I am not blaming the Committee staff. Despite what the Alliance Party has said to the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) over the past five years, the NIO still does not realise the significance that our party attaches to the voting system — that is obvious from correspondence that we receive from it. We consider the voting system significant enough to be listed individually. The Chairman (Mr Wells): A great many items come under “Institutional issues”. Mr McFarland: The voting system can be number 12. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If we get consensus, I am happy to put it in at number 12, because it is an important issue for the Alliance Party. Is there consensus? Mr M McGuinness: I think that there is an acceptance — although I do not wish to tempt providence — that some of the headings allow for all sorts of issues to be discussed. Sectarianism and racism are important issues that will have to be dealt with at some stage of our deliberations. The broad headings adequately deal with all the issues that are of concern to all parties around the table. If we try to outline the detail of each issue, we will be making unnecessary work for ourselves. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That suggests that we do not have consensus on number 12. Mr M McGuinness: I am not saying that I oppose it. Mr McFarland: The Alliance Party has raised this from day one, and if it is something that it feels strongly about I have no objection to making it number 12. Mr M McGuinness: I have no objection, but we should resist the temptation of expanding all the issues. Mr Ford: Chairman, I assure you that I will resist the temptation to put any of my other general concerns. However, since the Assembly voting system is the one part of the agreement that failed to work when implemented in good faith on 2 November 2001, it merits individual mention. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Have we consensus that the voting system be number 12? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Those are the 12 points under “Institutional issues”. We move on to “Law and order issues”. Mr McNarry has a concern about parades being in this category. Mr McNarry: We would like “Parades” and “Peaceful summer” to be removed from that list. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you want them moved to “Rights; safeguards; equality issues; victims”, or do you want them deleted? Mr McNarry: We do not want them deleted; we would like them to be put into another category. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It might sit under “Rights; safeguards; equality issues; victims” — particularly the third category. Mr McNarry: It is not an equality issue. It would stand alone in a discussion in which equality was included, but it is not an equality/parades issue. Mr Ford: In the past, Mr McNarry suggested that parading is a human rights issue. Since “Rights” appear as the first part of that heading, does he accept that parades could fit in there? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Or as part of “Unionist culture” perhaps. Mr McFarland: Parading has been mentioned through many a discussion. It is an issue for several parties for different reasons, and it would merit being added as point 9 under “Rights; safeguards; equality issues; victims” so that it can be discussed discretely. There are issues connected with it that are not directly connected with equality or human rights — although there are connections. However, as a stand-alone issue it is one that exercises many people for different reasons. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you want it as number 9 in the third category? Mr McNarry: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): “Unionist culture” is number 7 in that category. Mr McFarland: That might relate to Ulster Scots being part of the unionist culture, for example, which is not connected to parading. Parading is a separate issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Therefore you are content for “Parades/Peaceful summer” to be number 9 under “Rights; safeguards; equality issues; victims”. That deletes two items from “Law and order issues”. Mrs D Dodds: We should not lump “Parades” and “Peaceful summer” together. Parading is an important issue. It is an issue of human rights, culture and identity for the unionist community. It is extremely important, and it must be dealt with on its own. It must be sorted out, as it poses an important question. Mr McNarry: As we approached the summer, we discussed whether it would be peaceful. Conor Murphy is not present, but I am mindful of the fact that he said — and I am paraphrasing — that Sinn Féin’s attitude to the Committee and the Assembly would depend on what happens over the summer. That is what I understood from his comment. Discussions on a “Peaceful summer” would give us an opportunity to find out from Sinn Féin what it thought of the summer and what its attitude is. I will not talk about this issue in depth, but I agree with Diane Dodds; “Parades” should be a stand-alone category. Mr McFarland: Do we need the “Peaceful summer” category at all? I agree that it is not necessarily connected to parades. It is on the list because the issue was raised in June as we led up to the compilation of this list. It is now approaching the end of July, and it will soon be August. Events to come may influence whether we have a peaceful summer, but by the time the Committee gets beavering on the list, the issue may not need to be treated as a discrete topic, although it can be mentioned in passing. “Parades” should be dealt with separately at point 9. We could simply abandon “Peaceful summer” as a separate category and include it in the rest of the discussions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): At the rate we are going, we will be talking about a peaceful winter. Mr O’Dowd: I would like to respond to David’s comments by clarifying what Sinn Féin said, which was that a peaceful summer would facilitate a better atmosphere for this Committee to carry out its work on the wider preparation for Government. I do not think that Sinn Féin said that it was a precondition — in fact, I know that it did not. Mr McNarry: I am sorry to interrupt you, but you need to read Hansard. Mr O’Dowd: That is one of the few advantages of having Hansard in the room; we can go back and read the record. If some parties want to place “Parades” at point 9 and “Peaceful summer” at point 10, treating them as separate categories, Sinn Féin is more than happy to do that. The summer is rolling on, but Sinn Féin wants to work towards an even better summer next year. If we can deal with the matter, we should do so. Mr McNarry: To conclude on the “Peaceful summer” category, it would be remiss of anyone not to recognise the summer that we have had so far and the work, from many quarters, that went into that — particularly in certain parts of Belfast, where people worked very hard to achieve objectives. Perhaps under a separate “Peaceful summer” category, recognition can be duly given. People in those areas would appreciate it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mrs Dodds, would two separate headings at points 9 and 10 address your concerns? Mrs D Dodds: There certainly should be two separate headings. A peaceful summer is not simply identified with parades and unionist culture; if you lived on the Suffolk estate on Black’s Road, you would know that a peaceful summer is dependent on whether nationalists and republicans will stop stoning your house or coming to your estate with hurley bats at 5.30 am, as happened at the weekend. I object to the two categories being lumped together because they are not completely linked. It would be remiss of me not to object; I would not be doing my duty for those constituents who voted for me if I said that the two categories should stay together. I will be very interested to see how the summer progresses, especially in west Belfast in August. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We seem to have consensus. Dr Farren: Although, in one sense, the issue of a peaceful summer is of grave concern, it sits uneasily among the issues to be addressed in order to prepare for Government. Sectarianism, of whatever kind, is, of course, an issue. I could cite incidents in North Antrim that are not dissimilar to those to which Diane referred, but the shoe was on the other foot, if I can put it that way. An entire nest of issues related to community relations and sectarianism underlie what I understand to be the concerns about a peaceful summer. Chairman, as you said, it may be a case of a peaceful winter, or, as John said, a better summer next year. However, none of that will happen unless we get community relations right. Therefore, I would rather discuss community relations issues, if they are what really underlie the notion of a peaceful summer. Mr M McGuinness: We can become fixated with where different items are categorised in the course of this work; however, more important is what we do about the issues. There is no point in Mrs Dodds’s referring to an incident, which she says occurred recently, because that just invites people to come forward with other incidents that happened in different parts of the North. A young man, Paul McCauley, is critically ill at the moment as a result of a severe beating that he received on the Chapel Road in Derry some time ago. The attacks on Catholic churches and schools and on orange halls are disgraceful. All members of the Committee have a duty and a responsibility not to select one particular incident and proclaim it worse than all the rest. 11.15 am Despite the type of society that we live in and the difficult circumstances that we have all faced, we have experienced a relatively peaceful summer. Many parties contributed to that. Many within the broad Unionist community, the UUP, MLAs, our own party, people such Gerry Kelly and others worked hard to ensure that we came through many difficult situations in a way that the vast majority of our people find satisfactory. However, let us not fool ourselves that that resolves the difficulties: violence is still taking place against orange halls, schools and Catholic churches. It is despicable and it must stop. This Committee must give a lead; so I am not that concerned about how we categorise individual issues. I am more concerned about what we do about them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Again, we are in danger of starting a debate on sectarian attacks on halls or parading or whatever. The only issue that members are addressing here is whether they perceive an issue to be of such importance to one party that it should have a separate heading. Remember, and I am sure Mr Molloy will agree with me on this, when it comes up for debate at the hearings, no Chairman will stop any member raising these valid points under whatever heading they feel fit, because these are important issues. Everyone accepts that. Mrs D Dodds: I shall refrain from further comment, except to say that I cannot accept Sinn Féin’s eulogy to some of the people whom they credit with producing a peaceful summer, when they were the very people who went out of their way in the past to create the problem. Picking up on Seán Farren’s point, perhaps a “Peaceful summer” more readily sits under the title “Good relations”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McNarry, are you happy with that suggestion? Mr McNarry: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are getting somewhere. Ms Ritchie: Mrs Dodds’s suggestion has resolved the problem. However, we should be looking at the causes of where we are today; what members have been suggesting in the past few minutes are perhaps symptoms. We have to look at the causes before applying solutions. “Good relations” covers many facets, including respect for difference, which we should be trying to address. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You have squared the circle. We have two separate new items under “Rights”; one is “Parades” and the other is “Good relations”. Is everyone happy? Lord Morrow: Have you left “Law and order issues”? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No. As we move issues into other categories, we go back to the original category to see whether anything in it needs to be changed or deleted. We have consensus on that. Now we are back to “Law and order”. We have “Criminality”, “Decommissioning”, “Devolution of Policing and Justice”, etc. “Parades” has gone; “Paramilitarism” stays, as do “Policing” and “Rule of Law.” Are there any issues to be added? Lord Morrow: We would like to add “Community Restorative Justice” as number 9. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That would be new number 7. Does anyone have any problems with that suggestion? Members indicated assent. Right, that is 7. Is anyone looking at 8? Mr M McGuinness: Yes, MI5. The Chairman (Mr Wells): MI5? Mr McNarry: Are you going to be a witness on that, Martin? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does anyone have any views on that as an issue? Dr Farren: Is that not included under policing issues? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, I would say — Mr M McGuinness: Well, is Community Restorative Justice (CRJ) not included under policing? Dr Farren: I did not object. I am only asking a question. If that is the response, OK, but — The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is absolutely no doubt that a Chairman would allow that issue to be discussed. Dr Farren: I have absolutely no objection to discussing that issue separately, but I just asked. There seems to be no answer to the question in the terms that I asked it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have consensus on MI5 going in as number 9? Ms Ritchie: To cover MI5, would it not be better to have “policing and intelligence services”, or a separate title under intelligence services? That would cover any other matter under that umbrella. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That would cover a wider area. “Intelligence services” sits a bit more neatly. Are there any problems with that? Do we have consensus? It is instead of MI5 — “Intelligence services”. Mrs D Dodds: Just to clarify: you are putting policing and intelligence services together? They are not necessarily the same thing. The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, they are separate. Is there consensus on that? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Right, OK. We shall move on to rights and safeguards etc. We have added the parades issue and good community relations. Are there any issues? We may have to use this as a catch-all for anything that has been missed. Dr Farren: The Good Friday Agreement refers to the two dominant cultures here. If we are going to discuss one, we must discuss the other. However, in the light of the significant migration of other ethnic communities that has occurred in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday Agreement in particular, we should widen the cultural debate. I have no objection to discussing what is referred to here as “Unionist culture”, but we should include recognition and expression of all the different cultural traditions that are here. How we label that without getting long-winded can be left to the wordsmiths in the secretariat, but there is a cluster of issues that can be taken together, because it relates back to issues on good relations and sectarianism. Martin mentioned the need to address the issue of racism. There is a negative and a positive side to that matter. If we are going to debate issues of culture, we must do so comprehensively and not just focus on one. In case someone on the other side of the table thinks I am trying to smother it, I am not saying that we should not give explicit recognition to unionist culture. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am looking for a snappy title for all of that, Seán. Dr Farren: That is why I said I would leave it to the wordsmiths. The Chairman (Mr Wells): One suggestion is “Cultural issues”, but I am sure there are — Mr McFarland: The essence of what Seán is saying is that this is about ethnic communities. We have covered most of the other traditions and cultures. Seán used the words. Is “Ethnic communities” too broad a term? Ms Ritchie: “Ethnic communities and culture”? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have to get round Seán’s difficulty that there is reference to unionist culture but none to nationalist culture. Mr Ford: If the Clerks are suggesting “Cultural issues”, that seems to cover everything that Seán raised. We can all refer back to Hansard to all the things he raised. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): “Cultural issues”? Is that agreeable? It is instead of unionist culture or in addition to unionist culture. Mr M McGuinness: “Multicultural issues”. Mr McNarry: Could we perhaps take stock? There is a specific reason why the unionist culture is there. It is something that we spent time discussing, and there was agreement that it would be there. Without offending anyone else — and I understand what Seán was saying — could we have “Other cultures”? Dr Farren: No. If you name one, you need to name them all. Mr McNarry: But you are only raising this now. You did not raise it at the time, and there was no discussion of it. This is an extraction, a compilation, of headings of issues raised by parties during presentations. Dr Farren: But we are not excluded from introducing additional issues. Mr McNarry: I am not saying that they should be excluded, but — The Chairman (Mr Wells): Dr Farren is wise, because that issue could arise. It could be argued that it was not implicit that we would discuss ethnic issues or nationalist culture. One suggestion was to have a broad heading of “Unionist culture, nationalist culture and ethnic communities”. That would give the two Chairmen clear direction that those issues would have to be discussed. Even though nationalist culture was not raised in the scoping exercise, it will be discussed. The Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP raised the issue of unionist culture, but there was no reference to nationalist culture. The view of this Committee has always been that if a party considers an issue to be important, we allow them to include it for discussion. Would the subheadings of unionist culture, nationalist culture and ethnic communities be helpful? Mr M McGuinness: That will cover everything. Mr McFarland: Would those headings be on one line? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Those issues can be listed separately or on one line under the heading of “Unionist/nationalist culture and ethnic communities”. Do members want them on one line or as three separate headings? Mr M McGuinness: Let us be united for once. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members agreed to list those issues on one line? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That leaves us with 10 points for discussion, which is a manageable amount. Are there any other issues? Lord Morrow: The DUP moved the issue of parades from the heading of “Law and order issues” to “Rights; safeguards; equality issues; victims”. We also consider victims and truth and reconciliation to be separate issues. I am interested to hear what Mr Ford has to say about that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That puts us up to 11 points. Are members happy to split those two issues? The subject of victims is a big issue in its own right. Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do members feel exercised about any other items that have been left out? Dr Farren: We are free to add to the list at any time. The Chairman (Mr Wells): No reasonable issue will be excluded from these categories simply because it is not listed. If we listed everything, we would have pages and pages of headings. Lord Morrow: The heading of “Other” can safely accommodate issues not yet included. It is hard to envisage a subject that has not yet been mentioned, but it has been known to happen. Mr McFarland: If it were open to members to introduce additional issues into each of those categories, we would not need “Other” as a separate category. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will ask Mr Molloy’s opinion. I have expressed my views on how I see this going forward, but he may wish to agree or disagree. It is important that we agree, as we both chair the Committee. Mr Molloy: I have no problems. The main thing is that all the issues are listed; the overarching heading of “Other” is useful for subjects that may arise during discussions. Mr M McGuinness: Under the heading of “Other issues”, it is only sensible to ask what the issues are that have been raised with the Government and require delivery before the return of devolution. The rest of the packages dealing with financial business, institutional issues, law and order issues, and rights and safeguards all have explicit headings. I presume that whoever wrote the “Other” heading knows what those other issues are. They should share them with the rest of us. 11.30 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): Am I right in thinking, Lord Morrow, that that is in case another issue emerges? Perhaps an issue will develop in the media which has not been included in any of these headings, and despite the assurances that I have given that I would allow it, you want a catch-all category just in case. Lord Morrow: That is exactly it. If someone has an afterthought, he or she would not feel that the subject is blocked out, and it can be accommodated here. There is nothing more sinister about it than that. Dr Farren: I take it, Chairman, that the term “raised” does not refer to matters that have already been raised, but matters that may be raised? If it concerns matters which have been raised and of which we were unaware, we should be made aware of them. However, if they were matters that may be raised and which we have not anticipated, then they should appear on our agenda. Is that how I should understand “raised”? Mr M McGuinness: That is specifically what I am referring to. We need an explanation of what these terms actually mean. If “raised” means “may be raised”, then we should specify that. If these issues have already been raised then the Preparation for Government Committee is entitled to know what they are. Mr McFarland: Peter Robinson said in the media recently that the DUP had additional issues that it was raising with the Government in relation to the reduction in Departments and the number of seats for MLAs. Presumably those issues would be discussed under item 7 of institutional issues. Lord Morrow: Yes, that is probably right. I suspect that some of those issues might have been raised already under the comprehensive agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If members fear that issues will be ruled out of order by the two Chairmen because members were not given advance notice about them although they are relevant, I can reassure them that I think that will not happen. Mr McNarry, I will need to read the DUP’s submission on this. Mr McNarry: I want to come back to what I said earlier about the Secretary of State’s role in this. As that category is included, it is incumbent on the Secretary of State that he does not go on “Lone Ranger” jobs during the course of our deliberations, and that the Committee might be given some advance notice — even if it is through the Deputy Speakers. There should be no surprises. A statement from somebody that is contrary to something that may have been discussed the day before could destroy any of these meetings. I am anxious about that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The DUP’s original submission states: “In addition to these matters” — meaning the DUP’s list — “there are also a significant number of issues which we have raised with the Government which also require delivery before the return of devolution. We intend to raise the matters again with the Government in the future.” I assume that the DUP wants to raise those issues at various points. I presume that this is a reference to confidence-building measures. Mr McFarland: Logically, they should have been part of the DUP’s original submission. If there are secret issues that are subject to deals with the Government and have not appeared here — and presumably there are not — it would be useful for the Committee to be made aware of them. However, there may be side games going on. We might ask ourselves why we are bothering if issues are being identified and raised separately with the Government. Mr M McGuinness: The extract that the Chairman read out from the DUP’s submission was enlightening and helpful. It brings us to the heart of the problem. The DUP’s contribution clearly refers to these issues being raised with the Government in the context that there will be no devolution if they are not resolved. The Committee is entitled to know what those issues are. If, as Maurice has said, there is a more benign interpretation of what that means, the sentence should be changed to refer to dealing with other issues that may be of concern or interest to the parties. It is important that the DUP offer some clarification on the “issues”. The import of the last sentence of what you read from the DUP’s submission is that the issues are preconditions for the return of devolution. If so, this Committee is entitled to know that they are. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Lord Morrow, have you any comments on that? Lord Morrow: Some around this table will try to see something sinister in everything that we say. They will try to twist and turn it to mean something different. Seán Farren is close to the mark in his interpretation. The ‘‘Other’’ category is for issues that may have been missed, or which suddenly become relevant but have not been listed. It is there so that no member from any political grouping feels obstructed in raising a particular issue, simply because it does not appear on the list. New issues may arise. As David has said, we run the danger of having the “Lone Ranger” in the Northern Ireland Office issuing a statement every now and again. The Secretary of State told us yesterday that the Provos are now cleaner than clean. I suppose that the next statement will be that they are reforming into a Boy Scout organisation. We will go through that whole process between now and 24 November. Things are undoubtedly being done deliberately to unsettle this Committee and to hinder the restoration of devolution. Therefore, as issues arise it may be that a member feels he wants to raise them here. That is purely what the “Other” section is for. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members content with that assurance? Dr Farren: Maurice referred to what I said. I asked for clarification on how to understand the sentence. I said that if “issues” are to be understood as issues that have been raised, we should know about them. If the submission refers to issues that may be raised in the future, no one will know what those are until they have been raised, at which point they can be logged with this Committee. If the issues have already been raised and are additional to what we have heard about from the DUP, we should be told what they are. It is as simple as that. Is Maurice now saying that the interpretation should be that the submission refers to issues that may be raised but that we have not yet anticipated? If that interpretation is correct, I am happy to leave the list as it has been agreed. However, if the other interpretation is correct, we are entitled to know what those issues are. Mr M McGuinness: I agree with Seán Farren. It is essential that we know whether the DUP is speaking about issues it has raised with the Government and that require delivery, or, as Maurice has indicated in the course of this, that the submission refers to future issues. Mr McNarry: Is it not fair to say that it is essential that we all know what each party is doing? Martin may be talking to the Taoiseach. Sinn Féin could be doing some sort of deal down there. Goodness knows, it has done it before. [Laughter.] We should not become involved in a conspiracy theory. Lord Morrow has been clear, and we are prepared to accept what he has said about future issues. You have introduced the other Deputy Speaker so that you are clear on how to interpret “issues”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is why I did that. Mr McNarry: I think that was worthwhile, and I suggest that we move on now. Mr M McGuinness: I propose that the heading reflect Maurice Morrow’s contribution, on which there appeared to be agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I have a suggestion. Lord Morrow’s comments are now on the record, and we understand their import. The Committee Clerks are suggesting a heading: “Other issues that may be of concern or interest to the parties”. Mr Molloy and I have listened to the discussion, and we understand those issues. If an issue emerges like a rabbit from a hat, we will know whether it meets Lord Morrow’s assurance. Mr M McGuinness: I am content with the Committee Clerks’ suggestion. Lord Morrow: Do other parties have to give the same assurance? The Chairman (Mr Wells): If a party raised an issue that we had been notified about and that had not emerged out of the blue, we would have to apply the same criteria. Lord Morrow: I suspect that, from time to time over the next couple of months, all the political groupings around this table will air their concerns at meetings with the British or Southern Governments. Perhaps the parties will have meetings with other people or organisations. Nobody could deny the parties those meetings. Parties are good at putting their concerns into the public domain. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have a suggestion for a heading: “Other issues that may be of concern or interest to the parties”. We understand the context of that suggested heading. Do we have consensus? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Molloy, do you agree with what has been established? We need to understand how we are to proceed. Mr Molloy: Some of the issues may have been raised with the Secretary of State, or someone in the Northern Ireland Office may raise other issues. It might be worthwhile for the Committee to write to the Secretary of State asking that his views come through to this Committee. He may not do that, but at least he would have the opportunity to do so. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is Mr McNarry’s point. We should let the Secretary of State know exactly what we are doing, although I suspect that he will know five minutes after this meeting is over. We ask him not to take on any initiatives that may pre-empt or torpedo our work, at least not without consulting us. Mr McNarry: We do not want any surprises. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We want no surprises from the media. Dr Farren: Does that mean that the DUP no longer stands over the penultimate sentence of its initial submission to the Committee? It reads: “In addition to these matters there are also a significant number of issues which we have raised with the Government which also require delivery before the return of devolution.” The unidentified issues referred to in that sentence are the bone of contention. Mr McNarry: We have dealt with that issue. This is the second time that Dr Farren has come back on an issue after consensus had been reached. Dr Farren: Correct me if I am wrong, but has consensus not been reached on issues that may be raised in future? Mr McNarry: Consensus has been reached about the wording of this heading. A proposal was made, and it was accepted. Lord Morrow: Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to reinforce what David has said. Did you not invite the second Deputy Speaker, Mr Molloy, for his clear understanding, which was to draw a line under the entire issue? Dr Farren: With all due respect, Mr Chairman, I must ask for clarification. If the Chairman says that I am incorrect, I will stand corrected. I accept that we now understand the meaning of the sentence concerning matters that may be raised in the future. I am not referring to that sentence but to the penultimate sentence of the DUP’s initial submission. It reads: “In addition to these matters there are also a significant number of issues which we have raised with the Government which also require delivery before the return of devolution”. Will all those matters be included under the various headings outlining the Committee’s future business? Is that what is being said? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I think that I raised that point and that the DUP said that it came under confidence-building measures in point 2. Those have been well highlighted publicly. However, perhaps I picked up Lord Morrow wrong on that. Lord Morrow: No. Dr Farren: I apologise for wasting the Committee’s time if I did not pick up on that point. However, I thought that it was very important that I had the meaning clarified. Like other members, I do not want the SDLP to find itself in the situation in which matters that have already been addressed by the two Governments and that are pertinent to the restoration of the institutions are not being addressed here. 11.45 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): I can see the logic of what you are saying — we need to get the point clarified. Mrs D Dodds: There are no issues that have not been discussed over and over again. This is an irrelevant discussion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is the real issue, Dr Farren; you do not want to see the rabbit out of the hat. Dr Farren: I am sorry if I have misunderstood. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is a valid point to want to have clarified. We seem to have reached agreement on the main headings of what we will discuss. However, we have not agreed how we will discuss those matters. Before I ask Mr Molloy to return to his normal position, I will check whether members have any other problems with the headings. In fact, I will ask Mr Molloy to stay because we will have to move on to the nitty-gritty of how to proceed. Do members have any final points about the headings? I am sure that this section of Hansard will be well quoted in future, especially if anything is brought up that members feel is unacceptable. Mrs D Dodds: Will we return to points 2 and 3 under the “Government” heading? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes; it is a separate item. Are we agreed on the content? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I thank members for their help on that. We now have to agree the modus operandi of how we proceed: how often we will meet; whether we will call witnesses; and whether we will ask parties to submit papers in advance of the meetings. We have a heavy schedule ahead of us, and we should expect to meet at least twice a week as a full Committee over the next few weeks. I am sure that you are all very pleased to hear that — I can see why Mr Kennedy went on holiday. Can we perhaps get the practical points out of the way? Should we meet twice a week or more? When should we meet? Mr McFarland: The Committee now has three issues with which to deal. We agreed that we would bring in our experts on these issues — we have people who deal with human rights, victims, and so forth, who would obviously want to attend meetings on those matters. The logic is that we would have at least three meetings a week, with one on each topic. Ideally, we would want two meetings a week on each topic. That would mean that we would have six meetings of this Committee a week, plus the twice-weekly meetings of the subgroup on the economy. That adds up to at least eight meetings that Mr Wells and Mr Molloy will chair. A while ago it was suggested that we have more chairmen in order to facilitate such meetings. That idea was rejected at the time, but I wonder whether it is worth revisiting. Otherwise, Chairman, you will be fairly ragged if you have eight meetings a week — there are only five days in a week. Dr Farren: There are seven days in a week. Mr McFarland: There are five working days. Members will have spotted immediately that that does not compute with two Chairmen. Dr Farren: Why not? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Today is my twenty-third wedding anniversary, and I have lost brownie points for being here instead of at home. Mr McFarland: The question is whether, with the experts involved, we will run the meetings in parallel. On some days, this Committee may meet several times and in different formats. If it remains in the one format, there will be time constraints for the Chairmen, for example. We could follow the standard Assembly procedure of calling witnesses and hearing evidence, but members will know from previous experience that if one particular witness is called and not everybody else, we could get into the most awful trouble in the media for not taking things seriously. I am thinking of victims’ groups, for example. There are major issues to be discussed as to how we deal with this. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There was a proposal for additional Chairmen, but there was no consensus. Mr McFarland: Might we revisit it now in the light of current developments? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am advised that we can revisit it. The proposal that the Secretary of State suggested was that with our agreement by consensus we could have one SDLP, one Alliance and one Ulster Unionist Chairman, which would give us five — one per working day, basically. I will put that proposal again. Is it acceptable to the Committee? Dr Farren: Yes. Mr McFarland: It would certainly ease the burden that the two current Chairmen will carry in trying to cover what is potentially eight Committees a week. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If there were consensus on this we would advise the Secretary of State, and he would then ask the parties to nominate their representatives. Lord Morrow: Deputy Speaker, you are going down the road of — The Chairman (Mr Wells): I stress that that is if there were consensus. Lord Morrow: But that is tantamount to going into subgroups and taking it away from the Committee. Mr Ford: Even in the terms that Maurice has just outlined, presumably it would not be objectionable to him to have alternate Chairpersons taking the Chair of the economic matters subgroup, which would relieve the two of you of a share of the burden. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You mean keeping the same two Chairmen for the PFG Committee? Mr Ford: Yes. I do not accept Maurice’s argument, but if that is his feeling, surely it still merits considering alternate Chairs for the subgroup. Mr McFarland: This is a difficult issue in that if the PFG Committee adopts different guises, as in this case, the make-up of the Committee will be different for each subject it tackles. We will have different party experts in to explore institutional issues, policing, human rights and equality. Although they are not subgroups, the make-up of the Committee will change. Each of these “Committees” will try to get on with the issues involved, some of which are extremely difficult to identify. If we get into hearing witnesses, each of these groupings might work for three or four days a week. This is a major problem, particularly in terms of chairmanship. Also, when we had subgroups, the Secretary of State had decreed that each should be made up of one member of the Committee and one expert. Presumably that is no longer the case, because there is no rule in the PFG Committee to stop substitution. The three SDLP members currently in attendance need not stay; Dr Farren, who is almost always here, could technically leave and have two substitutes sitting here as members. Although one member from this Committee from each party must sit on a subgroup, because the subgroups on changes to the institutions and on policing and justice do not exist, the make-up of the delegations that attend the Committee on the Preparation for Government can be different for each of the issues to be discussed. Is not that correct? It is up to the parties to choose their representatives. Therefore, it is possible that different pairs from each party will be looking at each of the three areas for discussion. Sittings will not constitute meetings of subgroups but rather meetings of this Committee. However, if three different pairs can represent each party at those meetings, and the Committee is under time constraints, the issue arises about how meetings can be chaired by two people only. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It would be helpful if the role of Chairman of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland could be rotated. That is a separate group that deals with economic rather than political issues. A compromise would be to spread that load and continue with two Chairmen for the PFG Committee. Mr McNarry: What is the Speaker’s position? What is she doing? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Speaker will have absolutely nothing to do with this. She has made it very clear that she will not be participating. It was only on the Secretary of State’s directive that the Deputy Speakers are here. Do we have consensus on rotating the chairmanship of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland? Mr M McGuinness: What would that mean? Would the chairmanship rotate between the five parties on the subgroup or the three parties that do not chair this Committee? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It would rotate among the five parties. It is to be hoped that to do so would make it less onerous for Mr Molloy and me, who will be locked up here for most of the week chairing this Committee. The problem is that Mr Molloy and I are present at almost all meetings. Although we may miss the occasional meeting, we have effectively signed up for all of them. It is very difficult to take the Chair the following day unless we are present to watch developments. Mrs D Dodds: You definitely make the point about your needing to chair this Committee by emphasising the need for continuity in the Chair. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I said that continuity in the Chair is not as important for the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland. Lord Morrow: You still make the point. Mrs D Dodds: We see the difficulty, but you make the point very well for the two Deputy Speakers to chair this Committee continuously. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What is your view on sharing the chairmanship of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland among the five parties? Mrs D Dodds: That could be shared between the five parties. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It looks as though we have agreement to nominate three other Chairmen to rotate as part of the five for the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland. Mr McFarland: Will you be one of the five, Mr Chairman? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr Molloy and I will be among the five. Mr McFarland: Therefore, we have four groups. Each group can meet once a week, and one can meet for a second time each week, unless we are to meet in both the morning and the afternoon. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. There could be a Committee meeting in the morning and a separate Committee meeting in the afternoon. Dr Farren: It was generally understood that, given the volume of work that seems to be before us, it is unlikely that we will produce final reports by the end of August. Let us not overload people, particularly the secretariat, which will have work to do before and after each meeting. I suggest that the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland meet as it can determine and that this Committee, meeting three days a week, deal with the other three issues. Let us leave it to the parties to nominate whom they wish. That is not a matter for us. If they wish to send the same people or different people to all three meetings, that is their business. If this Committee were to meet three days a week and the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland were to meet twice a week, that would mean a meeting on each day of the working week. We might need advice on whether we could be serviced if we met quite so extensively and frequently. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Clerks had developed a system for covering three subgroups. Dr Farren: Are they saying that they could — The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Hansard reports would be slow, because a large burden would be placed on the staff. However, the meetings would have been recorded. Dr Farren: I can certainly live with that. 12.00 noon The Chairman (Mr Wells): Have we reached consensus on the appointment of three additional Chairmen for the economic subgroup? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Debbie Pritchard will inform the Secretary of State of that, and he will ask the parties to make nominations. That will help to relieve the load on Mr Molloy and me. Dr Farren has made a scaled-down proposal, to the effect that rather than meet twice a week — as Mr McFarland suggested — we meet every day, with the economic subgroup meeting twice a week. In other words, on Monday, we would deal with institutional issues; on Tuesday, we would deal with law and order; and on Wednesday, we would deal with rights and safeguards, etc. Dr Farren: Or whatever. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes; that is not hard and fast. Perhaps we could meet on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, with the economic subgroup meeting on Tuesday and Thursday. Mr M McGuinness: From a practical point of view, given that parties will send different people to the various meetings, and given that you and the other Deputy Speaker will chair most of those meetings, are you both available to do that throughout August? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am. Mr Molloy? Mr Molloy: Yes. Mr M McGuinness: You are gluttons for punishment. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We shall meet on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The economic subgroup will meet on Tuesday and Thursday. I presume that those meetings will begin at 10.00 am. The staff will rejig their rotas accordingly. How shall we deal with the running order? Shall we start with institutional affairs or with law and order? Dr Farren: Start with the institutions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The first week will be institutions, law and order, and then rights, safeguards, etc. Mr McFarland: Law and order on Wednesday, and rights on Friday. Is that correct? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. We have got that out of the way. Mr Ford: I wish to follow on from a point that Alan made about parties sending their experts to meetings. Some time ago, we discussed the question of parties’ entitlement to bring research staff, or whomever, as back-up to their negotiators — I am sorry; I should not use that word in front of the DUP. Given that we are seeking to go into some detail, I wonder whether other parties have a view at this stage on allowing party staff to attend as note-takers, note-providers, or whatever. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is entirely up to the parties. We took that decision before we decided to bring in Hansard. Everything is a matter of public record, so there is nothing to be gained by secrecy. Mr Ford: Not only has that changed, but so has the intensity of the work that we are planning. Mr McFarland: Another issue is that parties have various people who are away. It would be useful to have some form of continuity. Perhaps someone could sit at the back of the room to ensure that members do not drop bombs — metaphorically speaking — on different weeks. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If parties have whizz-kids who are experts in particular issues, they could sit at the back of the room. We may need to move to a bigger room. That raises the difficult issue of whether we allow the press to sit in on meetings. Mr McFarland: One of our successes is that, although we have Hansard reports, we are building relationships through people’s ability to speak to one another. If a press chap is here, the moment a member says something outrageous, he will be out the door, and when we leave the Committee, it will be on the one o’clock news. The workings of the Committee will be easier if the reports are in Hansard, and we can do our stuff later. However, if we effectively do it live, we will all be bouncing in and out of meetings to make comments to the press or to appear on ‘Talkback’, or whatever. That stands to wreck our work, which is building quite sensibly among the parties. We are getting some proper work done. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is much merit in what you say, Mr McFarland. The Committee Clerk has suggested that we decide whether we discuss institutional affairs on a Monday, and revisit it on consecutive Mondays, or whether we discuss institutional affairs three days in a row next week. Institutional affairs will be the time-consuming issue. What sort of continuity will we have if we discuss institutional affairs on a Monday, have another bite at it a week later and a further bite the week after that? Mr McFarland: Chairman, you are involved in only two of every five meetings. The Subgroup on Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland is to meet twice a week. Technically, there is nothing to stop this Committee discussing institutional affairs on a Monday. If somebody other than you or Mr Molloy were to chair the Tuesday meeting of the economic challenges subgroup, you would both be free on Tuesdays and Thursdays to chair another meeting of this Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Remember that the only difficulty is that a substantial proportion of the membership of this Committee will also sit on the economic challenges subgroup. Mr McFarland: No; they are different. I said that different people are involved in this. The Chairman (Mr Wells): At least one member from each party must sit — Mr McFarland: No. That was the case for the two proposed subgroups, which no longer exist. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The economic challenges subgroup was established under the regulations for subgroups. Mr McFarland: Yes, and Mr McNarry represents our party on that subgroup. He is the only person who is out of the loop. [Laughter.] My point is that, in discussions on institutional issues, law and order issues and safeguards issues, our party can be represented by two Members other than Mr Kennedy, Mr McNarry or me. There are no rules in this Committee about that, because substitute members can sit on the PFG Committee. Dr Farren: We will need to have a big recruitment drive. Mr McFarland: Had the subgroups been formed, either Mr Kennedy or I would have had to sit on it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): On that basis, 99 of the MLAs will have eventually sat in this room. Mr McFarland: Absolutely. There are no rules for this Committee, other than that substitute members can sit on it. Mrs D Dodds: Would it not be wise to leave the make-up of the delegations to the parties? Mr McFarland: Yes, but the make-up of party delegations is directly related to how many times a week we can meet. Dr Farren: Parties must answer to themselves. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there anything, for example, to stop this Committee meeting on Tuesday to discuss institutional affairs? Dr Farren: No. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The economic challenges subgroup would meet in the morning and this Committee could discuss institutional affairs on Tuesday afternoons, if needs be. Are you suggesting that as a practical way forward, Mr McFarland? Mr McFarland: A programme needs to be set out. If you chair a meeting on a Monday, Mr Molloy is present. Similarly, if Mr Molloy chairs a meeting on a Wednesday, you are present. If both Chairmen attend a Committee meeting, they cannot chair another meeting. Although it is useful to have the other Chairman present, it is neither effective nor efficient. If you were a time and motion man, you would be sacked for suggesting that. The question is whether both Chairmen can afford to continue attending the same meetings. I argue that they cannot. It is very useful and helpful, but you will not be able to sustain that if there are other meetings because, logically, if you chair a meeting on a Monday and Mr Molloy chairs a meeting on a Wednesday, you cannot chair the economic challenges subgroup. Do you see what I mean? Mr M McGuinness: As we have agreed the number of groups and so forth, I am not that sure that we should begin to work out the detail of how the issues will be taken forward. A more sensible way to proceed is for the two Deputy Speakers to meet a representative from each party to devise a programme for the coming weeks. If we continue as we have, we will be here until midnight. Mrs D Dodds: There is no reason why we cannot agree to Seán Farren’s suggestion that this Committee meet on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and the economic challenges subgroup meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays. This Committee can sit into the afternoon, if it so desires. Lord Morrow: Or into the night. Mrs D Dodds: That would resolve the issue. Mr Molloy: If it is decided on a Monday that the Preparation for Government Committee must meet on Tuesday, members who do not sit on the economic subgroup could attend the Committee. If membership of the economic subgroup were kept separate from that of this Committee, the Committee could meet on any day of the week. Mr M McGuinness: The problem is that we are thinking on our feet about this matter. Members must reflect on today’s discussion and send a representative to meet the Chairmen to work out a programme of meetings. The arrangements for how and when the Committee and the economic subgroup will meet are likely to be made through an ongoing process of amendment and change. Mr McNarry: Members of the economic subgroup were issued with a schedule. Therefore, they know what commitments they have until 18 August. A similar schedule would be helpful for the business of the Committee. Members have other commitments at their constituency offices and other people to meet. Committee staff should be able to organise a schedule for future meetings. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee is staffed by two experienced Clerks, who have formulated schedules for other Committees. We need to decide whether we wish to spend three days in a row discussing one topic, such as institutions, followed by, if required, three days in a row on law and order, or do we want to take forward business on a Monday-Wednesday-Friday basis? For example, each week, the Committee could concentrate on institutions on a Monday, law and order on a Wednesday, etc. What is the best way to deal with those issues? That is the only guidance that the Clerks need. Beyond that, we should let them use their expertise. What do members think? Should the Committee discuss institutions every Monday, or should it take one subject and discuss it on Monday, Wednesday and Friday? Dr Farren: I can see the attraction of trying to achieve much on one of the issues in one week. However, we need to engage others. Next week, we should start with institutions on Monday, use Wednesday for law and order, and discuss rights and safeguards on Friday. One subject — for example, institutions — may gather a head of steam and need more and more time devoted to it. If we address the issues in parallel, the other subjects are less likely to get pushed down the agenda. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members agreed that we must build in flexibility to ensure that if one issue needs further discussion, that can take place? Dr Farren: Yes. Mr M McGuinness: Absolutely. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a good compromise. Dr Farren: That would be wise. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members must decide whether to ask the parties to submit papers. May I assume that we will call witnesses? Mr McFarland: Time is against our inviting witnesses, unless they could substantially enlighten the Committee. Members have been discussing many of these issues for four or five years, or longer. In some areas, we may need expert witnesses, but we have no time. If we are to have one meeting a week on each of the issues, and we have to report in three weeks’ time — The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we leave it that, in principle, if we decide that we need to call witnesses, we will do so? That does not mean that we must call witnesses, but that the mechanism is there should witnesses be required. 12.15 pm Mr McFarland: We should err on the side of caution with witnesses because of the time factor and the trouble that we could get into by not inviting of all the interested parties who may wish to give evidence. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That brings us to an important issue. To assist the Committee, do parties wish to produce papers for each meeting? If so, papers for Monday meetings will need to be with Committee staff by the previous Friday. Mr McFarland: There is an awful shortage of time and many different topics to cover. Parties will be pushed enough to get this done with the personnel that they have. Hansard is recording the meetings, and, obviously, parties will be organised within their own systems. If we are to produce papers for each of the topics, the key people will have to spend all their time engaged in that when they should be at one of the subgroups. Parties may need to submit a paper on a particularly complex issue, but if we have to produce a paper on each topic, we will run out of time, effort and hours available. Dr Farren: The institutional issues are essentially inter-party ones, and we should not have to call expert witnesses on them. The parties had already prepared papers, some long and some short, in the run-up to the Leeds Castle discussions and what flowed from them and during the review that was undertaken a few years ago. There is unlikely to have been a great deal of change since. We have already initiated the procedure to produce a briefing paper on the issues, and if anything is missing, we will take it from the list that the Committee Clerks have prepared and from what we have prepared ourselves. We can have a paper ready for circulation on Friday. It is helpful if parties can produce brief papers on the issues. Otherwise, no one is very clear about people’s approaches until they start to talk. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The problem is that we need to have some structure for Monday’s meeting. At the moment, all we have is 10 or 11 points. It would help if the parties could at least provide sub-headings to each point. May I apologise to the Committee: I simply have to attend an incapacity tribunal in Newry, so Mr Molloy will be taking over from me in five minutes’ time. Do the parties agree that they will be able to produce something for the Clerks on the institutional issues, no matter how brief, by lunchtime on Friday? Then at least we will have some structure to the discussions that Mr Molloy will be chairing. I do not have to worry too much about it. Is everyone happy with that? Members indicated assent. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Could we have papers on the law and order issues by lunchtime on Monday and papers on rights and safeguards by lunchtime on Wednesday? It is also helpful for Hansard if the parties, and any witnesses that they may call, provide papers in advance. The next item of business is the future work programme. Members will have the work plan that was issued by the Secretary of State after the meeting held by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. There is also the suggested work plan for the Programme for Government, which is to be dealt with today. Can we take the work plan issued by the Secretary of State? Mrs D Dodds: Mr Deputy Speaker, are there spare copies of the work plan? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Can we close the windows? There is a terrible smell of diesel. The Committee needs to decide whether to accept the work programme and how our work will fit into it. Do members have any views? Mr McFarland: Originally, it was discussed whether the Committee would report by 18 August. Can I get an update? Is there a date by which the Committee must have its work completed in order for the debates on the report to be held at the beginning of September? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We need to go the Business Committee by 25 August in order to meet the date of the proposed plenary meeting on the report. Mr McFarland: Working back from that date, at what stage do we have to meet as a full Committee to agree the report? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The deadline for the economic challenges subgroup is 18 August. Because this Committee is not forming subgroups, it will have a wee bit of extra time to meet. The date that we are working to is 25 August, at which time we will go to the Business Committee, provided that the report is finalised by that date. Mrs D Dodds: This Committee must also consider the report from the economic challenges subgroup. Dr Farren: How fixed in stone are the dates of the plenary meetings? In order to gain a little more flexibility in the Committee’s work programme, and that of the subgroup, would the Secretary of State concede a week’s delay? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): My understanding is that, unless the Preparation for Government Committee proposes subjects for plenaries, the dates are not fixed at this stage. If the completion of the report were to be delayed by a few days, the Business Committee and the parties, rather than the Secretary of State, would be flexible in arranging plenary meetings. Dr Farren: It would allow us a little flexibility, and we would not be shackled to dates to which we need not be shackled. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There could be another way around it: if the economic challenges subgroup’s report were ready, it may be debated in a plenary meeting before the debate on this Committee’s report. The economic challenges subgroup has been asked to submit a report early so that this Committee can consider it. That will take slightly longer than the other way. The Programme for Government is one of the tasks set by the Secretary of State for this Committee to conclude by October. A draft Programme for Government and a draft ministerial code will be finalised. That will obviously be completed after the September deadline. Do members have any opinions on that? Parties obviously need to agree the order of work. Mr O’Dowd: I am getting a headache from the diesel fumes. Can we adjourn to get some fresh air? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The fumes could be coming from a generator. Mr McFarland: It seems that the fumes are being pumped into this room. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The order of work is the final issue to be dealt with. Shall we discuss it at a future date? Mr O’Dowd: Perhaps we can discuss it in future. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We can note the issue today, and parties can return to the Committee with an opinion. We obviously cannot decide everything today. We will meet again next Monday at 10.00 am. Adjourned at 12.24 pm. |