COMMITTEE ON THE Monday 31 July 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.03 am. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Welcome to this morning’s meeting. The minutes of the meeting of 26 July are attached to the papers. Would members like to raise any issues about the minutes? Are the minutes agreed? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I will deal with apologies and changes of personnel. Mr O’Dowd: I am here on behalf of Michelle Gildernew. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is anyone else from your party coming? Mr O’Dowd: No. Dr Farren: P J Bradley will join me for Mark Durkan. Mr Ford: Naomi Long is on her way. Mr McFarland: Mr Wilson is standing in for Mr Kennedy. Mr P Robinson: Gregory Campbell and I are standing in for somebody or other. Arlene Foster is the new Willie McCrea. Mrs Foster: Thanks. Has that been minuted? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Hansard will have noted that. As the meeting is being reported by Hansard, I remind members that they must switch off their mobile phones because they affect transmission, even if they are on silent mode. Today we will discuss the institutional issues. Parties were given the option to provide papers. I propose that each party takes five minutes to go through its submission, and then we will start the discussion. Mr Ford: According to the note that the Committee has been given, two parties do not intend to provide papers. How does that fit into the plan that everybody will talk to their papers? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It will be a challenge. Mr McFarland: It was proposed at the end of the previous meeting that parties would provide papers. The UUP representatives agreed to that, as we were effectively going out the door. I thought about it afterwards, and I am confused about the purpose of providing papers. At the beginning of this exercise parties submitted papers stating the issues, and they spent many hours questioning one another about what they meant. The DUP was questioned for five hours; Sinn Féin for six; and the UUP for four and a half. Unless there are new issues, which, as we discussed at the previous meeting, people are quite entitled to bring to the table, I am not clear about the purpose of providing new papers. Issues with which we must deal were identified in the first round. The purpose of the Committee in this format is not to negotiate but to mine down into those and identify whether there are further matters that we have not yet spotted or that need clarification and expansion. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): My impression is that we are to narrow discussions to institutional issues and that members could put forward a paper — to structure the meeting more than anything else — or they could simply talk about the issues that they think affect the preparation for government. Mr McFarland: The logic is that we have our list of issues already, and some will be important and extensive while others will be minor and fairly limited. For example, the Civic Forum is on the list. There are strong views about the Civic Forum, but it is not particularly complicated and could be dealt with relatively quickly. However, when the Committee comes to items such as the comprehensive agreement and the Belfast Agreement, discussions will be fairly extensive because different parties raised those matters. Matters that are issues for one party may not be for another. I thought that, having got this list, it would be logical for us to decide the order in which we want to deal with the items and then mine down and expand upon them. Technically, parties could bring forward a whole raft of new issues that did not derive from the first round. If that happens, we will be redoing the scoping exercise. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I agree that there could be other issues; however, if parties feel that some matters are important and should be raised, the Committee should recognise that and deal with them. Issues may have been lost while the Committee was considering the bigger picture. Can we agree that we open the discussion with five minutes for each party to present their paper or talk about the issues that they feel are relevant? Members indicated assent. OK, Mr Ford, over to you. Mr Ford: I will touch on the issues that the Alliance Party raised in writing or verbally in June 2006. Key issues revolve largely around the Assembly and the Executive. Other issues that we have mentioned, such as the Civic Forum, North/South and east-west bodies, appear to be relatively straightforward in comparison. The Alliance Party believes that the fundamental issue of ensuring that there is a fair and effective voting system in the Assembly has not been addressed. Such a system is possible only if voting is based on a weighted majority. The removal of designations remains a priority to getting a working voting system. Although issues on the composition of Committees and the election of Chairpersons are not crucial, fundamental difficulties have been shown with the ineffective and unfair d’Hondt formula, which is currently being used to compose the Executive and which will be used to recompose the list of Committee Chairpersons on at least two separate runs. The Alliance Party is not content with the current scrutiny of Executive functions, and we are particularly concerned that the Committee of the Centre does not cover all the functions of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). That is, of course, subject to any future functions that OFMDFM may have. We want scrutiny of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) to extend from Ministers merely reporting on meetings to their compiling an annual report on which detailed questioning of the Council’s work could be based. In certain circumstances, the Assembly should be able to use a weighted vote to reverse ministerial decisions. That proposal is somewhat different from that which states that ministerial decisions would stand only if they attracted a weighted majority. Under the heading of “Executive”, there seems to be broad agreement on the need for a statutory ministerial code. The Alliance Party supports that, but there is also a need to enhance the ministerial Pledge of Office. There are major problems with the formation of the Executive and the Assembly’s endorsement of it. Those problems were touched on in some respects by the so-called comprehensive agreement, but they have not been dealt with properly. There is also a huge issue about the lack of and need for Executive collectivity. Discussions on the devolution of justice have highlighted that point, while other issues have illustrated that there are too many Departments. The structure of Government is ineffective, and that point ties in with the functions of OFMDFM. There is scope for enhancing the role of the Civic Forum, which perhaps should have the statutory right to be consulted on proposed legislation. There is also scope for ensuring that civic society has a more effective input in the government process. There is a need to re-examine the scope of the various aspects of North/South co-operation to ensure that opportunities to derive more practical benefits are taken. The comprehensive agreement’s recommendation to form a parliamentary tier between the Assembly and the Oireachtas should be advanced. The Alliance Party proposed that in the Assembly some years ago, but it was never implemented. Similarly, the effectiveness of the British-Irish Council (BIC) on east-west issues should be enhanced. An annual report would be beneficial, but I suspect that we would not get the leaders of all the Governments that are represented to debate that report. Mr P Robinson: I sympathise with Alan McFarland’s point about us being in danger of going over the same material. If the hope is to grind the discussion down further, we must talk about the issues that are listed under the heading of “Institutional issues” on a subject-by-subject basis. We are content to do that. However, the DUP stands apart from all the other parties who supported the institutions in the Belfast Agreement, although I expect that even the parties that supported that agreement will have recognised, through experience, that it was not a perfect document and that there is scope for improvement. Therefore, between our proposals to change fairly significantly some of the structures of the Belfast Agreement and the view that there is some improvement, some work can be done. Like the Alliance Party, the DUP is not content with a system that is mandatory and that ensures that all the major parties are in government for all time. A mandatory system in an emergency or other special circumstance could be justified — for instance, in wartimes, all Westminster parties came together in a war Cabinet. One could also reverse the analogy and justify having all the parties sticking together in situations in which a country comes out of war. However, the system must exist for a limited time, and the Belfast Agreement gave the impression that this one was for ever. One way of doing that is to adopt the Alliance party’s suggestion of looking at the voting system, because that leads inevitably towards coalitions that are voluntary, provided they can get the necessary support. I assume that the weighted majority would be struck in such a way as to ensure a level of cross-community support. The DUP is quite content to look at those ideas, and its policy document ‘Devolution Now’ already advocates a voluntary coalition, which can be brought about by weighted majorities. 10.15 am As far as the general principles are concerned, the DUP divided its misgivings about the structures of the Assembly under the Belfast Agreement into four — whether they were accountable, stable, effective and efficient. They were demonstrably not accountable, either to the Assembly or the Executive. I enjoyed that free rein as much as some other Ministers, but it obviously meant that decisions could be taken within a Department; the Committee, the Assembly and the Executive could do nothing about it — the only person who could do anything about it was the nominating officer, if he or she determined to do so. That is not a satisfactory situation and, in the long term, could lead to all sorts of democratic perversions. For example, I could foresee one Education Minister leading policy in one direction, only for it to be moved in a completely different direction by another Minister appointed after the next running of d’Hondt — even though the Executive might remain constant. Therefore, there must be some collective responsibility, and the Government’s proposals in the comprehensive agreement sought to bring about a greater degree of such responsibility. It is essential that we do that. If accountability is important at an Assembly level, it becomes more important, at least theoretically, at a North/South level, where decisions should be in keeping with the view of the Executive and the Assembly, rather than the view of the Minister who happens to be present at the time. I understand that the previous Executive did discuss some issues that were intended for discussion at North/South meetings, although in working practice, as opposed to under any legal requirement. Accountability must be on a clear legal basis so that everybody has the comfort of knowing that the decisions taken will have been aired and, hopefully, agreed before such meetings take place. I do not think that I need to argue the case too much in relation to stability. The repeated suspensions of the previous Assembly, and this Committee’s existence, show that we do not have that stability, and a series of issues fall under that heading. As regards efficiency, even the Secretary of State seems to be wising up to the need to streamline the institutions. The SDLP’s paper mentions the Civic Forum. The existing Assembly rules allow for a most massive consultation mechanism whereby any member of the community can be consulted about any initiative. I am not quite sure if there is any benefit in adding to the structures and making the whole process more cumbersome and less efficient. As the Secretary of State has recognised, the issue of efficiency clearly falls around the number of Departments. That does not necessarily go to the heart of the issue of the number of Ministers, because there can be more than one Minister to a Department, as is often the case. As far as Departments are concerned, there is duplication of work between the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and not just the Department for Social Development, but other Departments such as the Department of Finance and Personnel. It is hard to separate some of the roles given to Departments, and we had experience of that in particular with regard to planning, where area plans were separated from the regional plan. Similarly, road safety was separated from the Roads Service. Through running the system even over the short period that we did, that kind of issue arose across a range of subjects. One would have drawn lines between departmental responsibilities differently. It was hard to justify the existence of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, which did not have sufficient work. Reducing the number of Departments would have made good sense and would have saved money, allowing funding to go to front-line services to the benefit of the whole community. I move on to the issue of effectiveness. I suppose it is better openly discussed around the table that although Sinn Féin and the DUP were involved in discussions leading to the publication of the proposals for a comprehensive agreement by the two Governments, neither party signed them off. I suspect that there are elements that Sinn Féin would like to have had otherwise; there are certainly elements that the DUP would like to have had a different way. By and large the proposals sought to address some of the issues of accountability, stability, effectiveness and efficiency. Criticisms by other parties were made, probably because they were not involved as much, or as much as they should have been, by the Government, rather than because of the content of the document. Most criticism centred on how the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were to be put into their posts; the impact that that might have subsequently on ministerial positions; and whether there was any requirement for the Assembly’s approval. I saw less criticism of the processes used to ensure accountability. I must say I found them a bit cumbersome. We have sympathy with the general principles of the institutional changes that were suggested in the comprehensive agreement, although in many cases we thought they could have been done better. Issues relating to the North/South structures are seen as those in which nationalists are most interested. I have no difficulty in having a better relationship with the Irish Republic, particularly with respect to mutually advantageous co-operation. The line that the DUP draws is that we want the relationship to be practical, rather than politically motivated. We do not share an ideology where the purpose of institutions and structures is simply to suck Unionists into all-Ireland processes with an eventual political goal. For practical purposes we want to co-operate and be good neighbours. The best way of putting it is that we want to be their friends, not their family. The DUP is happy to go into detail on each of the issues, but I suspect I have run out of time in this brief run around the course. Mr Murphy: As Alan McFarland has said, parties tabled papers at the start of this exercise. Part of our paper detailed the outstanding institutional issues. We were questioned for some six and a half hours on that aspect. Not all of that time was spent on institutional issues, but there was quite an airing of them. We are not convinced of the need to submit a further paper on these issues. They are well documented. The institutional issues arise out of the formal review of the Good Friday Agreement, which was the mechanism used by the parties some years back. Those discussions paved the way for the Leeds Castle talks and, eventually, the two Governments’ proposals for a comprehensive agreement, which were tabled in December 2004. Several issues were raised at that time in the expectation that the institutions would get back up and running in a short time frame. The DUP was to be involved in that, and, as we made clear when we talked about those issues at the start of this Committee’s work, that context no longer exists. The proposals for a comprehensive agreement no longer exist in their original context. Therefore, at the beginning of this year, when we were asked to submit suggestions to the two Governments relating to outstanding institutional matters, we presented several issues that needed to be addressed. I must stress that, in our consistently held view, none of those issues are an excuse for not setting up the institutions now. All of those matters can be dealt with in the context of functioning institutions. Although we are highlighting issues that we would like to see addressed, our clear view is that that can be done when the institutions are up and running. There is no need to use the matter of outstanding issues to delay the setting up of the institutions. Nevertheless, in the context of this Committee’s work, some of the issues that we highlighted to both Governments when we met them in February to discuss outstanding institutional matters concerned stability. We put forward our long-held view that the Northern Ireland Act 2000, which allowed for suspension, should be repealed because it was the primary cause of instability in the institutions. On accountability, we asked for legislation to create a requirement for Ministers to attend Executive meetings, which was not the position in the last Executive, when the Democratic Unionist Party did not attend them. That legislation would also require Ministers to attend the North/South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council meetings, when appropriate. We wanted legislation to create an automatic entitlement for all Ministers to attend North/South or British-Irish plenary meetings, and for Ministers with relevant responsibilities to attend the sectoral meetings of those bodies. Members will recall that the former First Minister interfered with that process and refused to allow my colleagues to attend the appropriate and relevant sectoral meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council. We also suggested putting the Committee of the Centre on a statutory footing, which it did not have in the previous Assembly. There was a sense that the scrutiny that applied to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister was not as strong, or did not have the same authority, as the other statutory Committees that scrutinised Departments. We argued that the Ministerial code should have a statutory basis in order to improve accountability. Issues of that nature arose within the previous Executive, and there was a general sense during the formal review discussions, and in any discussions on institutional matters since, that accountability mechanisms needed to be tightened up. We shared some of those views. Peter Robinson referred to the proposition on the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. In our view, the context for the proposition put forward by the two Governments in paragraph 9 of annex B of their comprehensive proposals no longer exists. We argue that the Good Friday Agreement’s position on the election of a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister should be adhered to and should not be changed. We have also argued for the convening of a bill of rights forum. We have outlined several issues. We are content, however, to listen to the ideas advanced by other parties and see where that takes us. There is a general view — which was brought to the formal review of the Good Friday Agreement — that there are areas of agreement that can be tightened up, such as accountability and stability, and we are prepared to look at all of those. However, to be clear, the context for the issues put forward by the Governments in their comprehensive proposals no longer exists. Sinn Féin will pursue the outstanding institutional issues as we see them, and I hope that we will reach agreement on all of those matters. However, agreement on those matters does not necessarily predate the establishment of the institutions. That should happen as a matter of urgency. There is nothing that stands in the way of the re-establishment of the institutions. 10.30 am Dr Farren: I am not as concerned about repetition or revisiting issues as some people seem to suggest, notwithstanding the lengthy discussions and interrogations that parties have had with each other over the past few weeks. I have been involved in these kinds of exercises long enough to realise that repetition is probably the least of our problems. We should not be afraid to revisit issues if necessary, especially given the kind of agenda that we set ourselves last week. The SDLP’s submission follows, in numerical order, the main items listed for discussion last week under the heading of “Institutional issues”. I do not intend to go through them all in detail now. A significant proportion of the electorate, North and South, endorsed the Good Friday Agreement, and it remains the bedrock on which we need to move forward. I have always recognised that there are shifts in opinion on the agreement. However, those are more to do with the failure to operate and maintain the institutions because of matters that were extraneous to them rather than any that were inherent in them. That is not to say that the SDLP has not recognised during the review of the agreement and, more recently, during discussions in this Committee, the need to examine some matters to ensure greater degrees of accountability, effectiveness and efficiency with respect to how the Assembly; the Executive; the North/South Ministerial Council; the east-west structures and the Civic Forum operate, and that is reflected in our submission. The SDLP believes that the Civic Forum still has a useful role to play. It came into existence in the later stages of the operation of the institutions and, therefore, took some time to find its feet. Given the nature of the Civic Forum, it was never going to be a major public body that would operate in a blaze of publicity: it would be one that would do useful work in bringing together all the strands represented on it. Those strands would not otherwise have an opportunity to hear from each other or to express their views, insofar as they were collective views, to the Executive, the Assembly and the wider public, thereby acting as a challenge on medium- and longer-term policy matters. There would be no obligation on the Assembly or the Executive to adopt the Civic Forum’s views but it would still have a useful role to play and should continue to receive our support. The parties who were centrally involved in comprehensive agreement will say that they did not sign off on it. However, at the time they greeted the proposals from both Governments as historic, and a major breakthrough, and seemed to think that there was considerable potential for progress. The SDLP was not involved centrally. It made its views known to the Governments and it engaged in discussion with other parties — notably the DUP, and, at times, Sinn Féin — but it had no hand, act or part in the final draft of the proposals, has never accepted them, nor does it regard them as having any formal standing. Some aspects of the proposals could attract the SDLP’s interest and support, however, it does not support the proposals for a comprehensive agreement, and it is trying to make the necessary improvements to the operations of the institutions as set down in the Good Friday Agreement. The SDLP welcomes this opportunity. I am not sure how the Committee will organise its business from now on, and that may be the next issue we will have to address when the initial round of contributions have been concluded. Mr McFarland: The UUP’s detailed views are in the Official Report of 28 June, and I will not go into those again. The statements made by our Government and the Irish Government continue to say that the Belfast Agreement is the basis on which all parties are having discussions with a view to getting Government up and running. As Peter Robinson said, there are areas in the agreement that did not work properly in the first Assembly. There are areas that in light of our experience of the first Assembly could be tweaked and improved, and it is clear from the first round of discussions in the Committee that most parties are not uncomfortable with that. There is disagreement about which areas need to be improved, but there is agreement that improvements must be made. There are common issues where agreement has already been reached. For example, no party is uncomfortable with the need for a ministerial code to tie Ministers into exactly what they will do and what their responsibilities will be. Most parties broadly agree that North/South issues should be dealt with on the basis of sensible, practical politics and policies between the two jurisdictions — as Peter Robinson said — and that the east-west part of the agreement was an orphan child because the Governments refused to have a secretariat. The east-west structures must be treated on an equal basis with the North/South structures. Those are obvious issues, and should not cause an enormous amount of disagreement. There is confusion over the comprehensive agreement. For the past month and a half William McCrea has said that it is inviolate; it is a DUP document, and it has been agreed with the Government and must be delivered. The Minister of State, Mr Hanson, said in the House of Commons that his Government had a deal with the DUP and it would be delivered later in the year. I was encouraged by Peter Robinson’s statement the week before last when he said that the DUP was not tied to it. There is confusion about the status of the comprehensive agreement and the undertakings that have been given on it. It would be useful to get an update, because the comprehensive agreement is a modified version of the Belfast Agreement. Like the SDLP, the UUP was not part of the comprehensive agreement negotiations. We understand that some parties that were part of the negotiations on the comprehensive agreement are not signed up to it. Sinn Féin is on record as saying in this Committee that it is not signed up to the comprehensive agreement, and Peter Robinson is on record in the House as saying that the DUP is not signed up to it. It will be interesting to see where we are with it now, because the comprehensive agreement is the last document that we are examining to establish any useful areas on which we can all agree; and whether those areas on which there is clearly no agreement require tweaking. The Civic Forum was the enthusiastic brainchild of the Women’s Coalition. Arlene Foster will recall that in discussions following the signing of the Belfast Agreement in 1998, we were all so fed up that we went along with the idea of a Civic Forum without having any enthusiasm for it. When the Assembly was first up and running, the Civic Forum proved largely useless. I have spoken to people who sat on it and they agreed that it was largely useless. The comprehensive agreement includes a proposal for an all-Ireland Civic Forum, and I find that even more disturbing. We must discuss that. The question of dual/ triple mandates is tied in with the Review of Public Administration (RPA) and the number of Departments. They are inter-related issues because large super-councils would have devolved powers, and that will raise effectiveness and efficiency issues for the Assembly. On Wednesday, the Committee, in dealing with policing and justice issues, will discuss whether we need more or fewer Departments. The number of Departments is vital and we need to discuss it. The RPA forbids, by law, Members of the Assembly to be councillors. Interestingly, in Scotland the media led the charge against dual mandates. The media questioned whether MSPs could be doing good work for Scotland if they were sitting in Westminster. I understand why, at the moment, MLAs may wish to be MPs or councillors. However, if the Assembly were fully up and running, it would be difficult for MLAs to serve their constituents properly at Westminster or in a council while trying to do good work at Stormont. We need to examine how an MP can also be an MLA and a councillor and any combination thereof. Issues concerning the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are tied up with the comprehensive agreement. I talked in depth about them and the question of whether the unionist or nationalist veto on who is First Minister or Deputy First Minister should be removed. At the moment, unionists must put their hands up for the nationalist or republican Deputy First Minister and republicans and nationalists must agree on the First Minister. In a way, that is a safeguard because it locks people into a system of jointly supporting the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The voting system is complicated and we have discussed weighted majorities at various stages. That would lend itself to a full and fruitful discussion of the different options, and we may need some advice on that. 10.45 am The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members want to ask questions or are there issues that they want to raise? Mr McNarry: I have a question with which the secretariat might be able to help. Despite the Government facilitating the prevarication and vetoes that we have had to endure — which has contributed to a magnificent hatchet job on our credibility with the public — we are trying to create space in which to recover our credibility. My understanding is that the public welcomes the fact that Committees such as this are meeting and working; it sees that as a clear change. Such progress is also building public confidence in our abilities. The decision to discuss the issues detailed in the schedule — institutions, law and order, rights and economic challenges — separately seems to have been agreed by this Committee. What we are doing here perhaps bodes well for the integrity of a future institution. That is crucial to the points that every member made about stability, efficiency and co-operation. As the Committee discusses the issues, it is important that it presents a report to the Assembly for its approval. We have agreed that, but I merely underscore the importance of doing so. I am sure that the Prime Minister would embrace the recommendations of a report by this Committee and by the economic subgroup. I assume that a report would contain recommendations. We should also give some thought to establishing the status of such a report. I would not want it to be used simply to promote a debate that we have been calling for in the Assembly. I note, too, that those who previously said that they would not take part in such a debate now say that they will do so. I would not want a report of this Committee to be merely a pitch; it should not be merely an aspiration for a debate. I hope that during the discussions we will think about the outcome of the report. I do not wish to run a sprint before we get into the marathon, but it is vital that we give some thought to what agreement can be reached on the recommendations that such a report might contain and how those recommendations might be put before all 108 Members and before those in government. That is very important, and it would be a proper signal to send to the public. Is there some direction percolating in the background about the status of a report to which this Committee would agree? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The content of the report — as opposed to using it merely to get a debate — and the work that goes into it are important. Mr P Robinson: I assume that the report will indicate the parties’ views on each of the issues and where there is, and is not, some agreement among the parties. The report cannot go much further than compiling the level of agreement on each of the subject matters. Some questions were posed during the course of members’ contributions, and clearly there were some misunderstandings, so it might be worthwhile touching on some of those. If anyone can talk about a context no longer existing, surely the context that no longer exists is one where there is support for the Belfast Agreement — the kind of support that is necessary for it to exist. The whole structure of the Belfast Agreement required that there be support from both sections of the community. That support does not exist. There is ample evidence from the last four elections that the Belfast Agreement does not have the support of the unionist community. Indeed, opinion polls indicate that there is some draining away of support even beyond that. Each of us can put our spin as to whether we believe that that is because it was not implemented or because people, having had more time to examine it, recognise that it was folly to have supported it in the first place. The end result is that the Belfast Agreement does not have the support of the unionist community. The Belfast Agreement, of course, is more than the institutions. It was a series of other decisions about policing and prisoners, and with regard to the institutions, about the fact that people could be in those institutions irrespective of their relationship with paramilitary organisations that may be active. The end result is that it is a context that does not exist. There is no support for the Belfast Agreement in the unionist community. Therefore if people say that no context exists for the comprehensive agreement, we have to face the reality: it is only what we agree here and now that matters. Whatever we call it, that is the only basis on which we can move forward. As regards the DUP’s position on the comprehensive agreement, I thought that that had been made very clear. However, it does not seem to have been understood so I will repeat it. The comprehensive agreement was the product of the two Governments, arising out of extensive discussions with two political parties, separately. We understood, although clearly to a lesser extent with other parties, that the result was not signed off by either Sinn Féin or the DUP. However, the DUP, then and now, regards the proposals contained in the comprehensive agreement as being progress from what had occurred beforehand. It would be a very foolish person who would say that proposals that are not signed off should be implemented if they cannot be improved on. We want to improve on the proposals in the comprehensive agreement, and if we can, we shall — it is as simple as that. The all-Ireland consultative forum contained in the comprehensive agreement was clearly not a DUP proposal, although anyone in the DUP would regard that as much less worrying than the proposals for an all-Ireland executive body agreed by others. I see no danger in a forum that is consultative; I see it as a waste of time and money. However, in order to get an overall agreement, people will be prepared to take decisions that allow some wastage into the system. I believe that there is no real benefit in having either a Northern Ireland or an all-Ireland consultative civic forum, although neither of them is particularly damaging to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. Dr Farren: David McNarry raised the nature of the report. It would be helpful to gain some clarity on what we can achieve, although some of Peter’s earlier remarks clarify at least part of that. If the Committee is to make a report at this stage, it is unlikely to point to much agreement. The report could outline the parties’ positions on various issues. To some extent, there may be degrees of convergence within those positions; in other respects, there will not be convergence. That will be clear to see when the report is presented. We may well have to settle for a fairly modest report, which could form the basis for whatever negotiations will take place in the autumn — unless, of course, we agree to become a negotiating body. However, some parties have clearly set their minds against that at this stage. Nonetheless, I would like to hear what parties think we can and are likely to achieve with the initial report that we will finalise at the end of this month or in early September. By identifying the issues and detailing parties’ respective views, greater clarification will be gained and degrees of divergence and convergence will be more sharply presented. That will be a very helpful exercise and will probably be as much as we can achieve over the next few weeks. Mr P Robinson: As a possible follow-up to that, the report could list each issue that makes up the component parts of the institutional structures. The report could express each party’s views on those issues to gauge the level of convergence. Dr Farren: The initial list was presented at our meeting last Wednesday — there was some modification to that, but not a great deal. That list is a series of headings, which may need to be further ordered in a more logical way, but it certainly provides scope for a report to be compiled that details the views of the SDLP, the DUP, the Alliance Party, Sinn Féin and the UUP. If we cannot agree to go further than that, people will see for themselves to what extent there is convergence or divergence among the parties. Those speaking about the report in any subsequent Assembly debate may wish to focus on areas where they think there is potential for movement. That would be a modest report, but possibly the only type that the Committee is likely to be able to present — unless, of course, we turn ourselves into a Committee that wants to go further than simply identifying in more detail where each party stands on the issues. I am ready and anxious to do that, if others are happy to engage in more detailed discussion on where we can — and should, and probably have to — achieve a high degree of convergence and agreement. 11.00 am Mr Murphy: Seán Farren is correct to say that it would be a modest attempt at producing a report to simply list the issues and individual party positions. The Committee has done that already. Several weeks ago, there was an attempt to complete a report simply because the Committee had met x number of times and had been recorded by Hansard. In Sinn Féin’s opinion, any report should be an attempt, at least, to resolve some of the institutional issues. There are issues on which there could be broad agreement, and it is important that those be identified. If there are other issues on which there cannot be agreement, and that members feel would be better left to later negotiations, the Committee should agree that. However, if the Committee’s purpose is to identify issues and to hear the views of each party, it has done that and it is doing it again today. It could do it in more detail, but that would set the Committee’s sights very low. The Committee should attempt to put at least some of the issues to bed and to state that because the parties are in agreement on them, they do not need to clutter up any future discussions. That is the sort of report that the Committee should aim to publish. David McNarry made the point that Sinn Féin has gone public at last with its position on Assembly debates. Its position has been clear since 15 May. If there were genuine business, concerning preparation for government, Sinn Féin would be quite prepared to debate it in the Assembly. Its objection was that Assembly debates were being tabled on issues over which the Assembly has no responsibility. Of course, given its reaction to some of the proposed topics, it has been proven that the Northern Ireland Office takes no heed of party suggestions. The Committee should not simply be going round the houses, listing issues and saying were it stands with them. It should be considering whether resolution could be achieved on the issues that parties have identified. Members need to ask: Can the Committee move forward? Can it use its time constructively? Can the Committee contribute to getting the institutions to function before 24 November? As I see it, that is the Committee’s purpose. Otherwise, why are members — all of whom are busy in their own rights — spending the summer sitting around a table discussing these issues? Why are they doing that if not to achieve some form of resolution? Peter Robinson remarked that the context for the Belfast Agreement/Good Friday Agreement has altered. The fact remains that it is a sovereign agreement between the two Governments. It was mandated, and the two Governments were mandated to implement it. No such status exists for the ‘Proposals by the British and Irish Governments for a Comprehensive Agreement’, which were published in 2004, and that should further drive on the Committee to reach an agreement whereby the Assembly can be working again before 24 November. If the Committee does not reach such an agreement by 24 November, Northern Ireland will find itself with the Good Friday Agreement minus the Assembly, the element to which, I suppose, unionism was most attached. That is what is shaping up for us beyond 24 November. Sinn Féin would prefer that the Assembly was up and functioning, which is why its members have attended this Committee to clear away some of the issues that people feel are outstanding. The Committee needs to aim for a report that shows the work that has been done, the issues that have been discussed and resolved, and, maybe, highlights those issues that need further work. To produce a report that simply lists how each party feels on the issues would be to ask the Assembly to debate the Hansard report. Members attempted to do that a number of weeks back. Sinn Féin wants to see a genuine report that reflects genuine work. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Will members consider how the issues could be grouped? Mr McFarland: The task of the Committee in this format is to mine down into the issues and to identify whether there are other more complex issues that members have not spotted. A number of the issues fit together or are included under the same heading. It would be helpful if members could extract the broad headings. In his document, Peter Robinson listed accountability and institutional issues. If we agree to extract broad headings and make a list within those, we can find out whether there are further issues to be identified. I do not know whether we can agree. The word “negotiation” has been neuralgic. At every meeting of this Committee, William McCrea confirmed that the DUP is not negotiating, although he agreed that the party would identify issues. We should stick to that for the moment to see whether there are other issues within these broad topics that need to be identified and whether they can be solved by this Committee. We should not become excited about some of the issues that are not solvable by the parties or by the Committee. We should simply log those issues. In negotiations, the parties may be able to solve other matters. If we identify those issues and the party positions, we will be well placed to take decisions eventually. Mr Ford: Peter Robinson commented that support for the agreement continues to drain away. In recent polls — which I do not have in front of me — there was a clear indication of a significant body of people — a majority —who wanted to reform the agreement rather than do away with it. That is entirely consistent with the position of this Committee. The parties have set out their priorities in different ways and at different times. The party documents are set out in different ways. They do not differ hugely, but there is no easy way to read across. Seán Farren’s modest first step would at least mean that we set out the parties’ positions on the topics that have been identified. We might well take some of them to a further stage where we could record that there was a broad measure of agreement. For example, we have already highlighted issues such as the ministerial code. If we start by putting parties’ views together on the individual topics, we might find ourselves at the point where some matters could be resolved in a relatively straightforward way. On other matters we would record a set of conflicting opinions, which would inform an Assembly debate. I would hope that the Committee might have made some decent progress by early September. A report would provide information in real negotiations led by the two Governments, at whatever point the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach decide to parachute in on us. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There are 12 items on the list. Perhaps we could link them together. The Belfast Agreement and the comprehensive agreement are linked. First Minister and Deputy First Minister issues, the voting system in the Assembly, partnership in government — can we link these together to narrow them down? Is that possible? Understandings and undertakings perhaps fall outside the remit. Mr P Robinson: This list constitutes not much more than a whinge list that we have produced collectively. If we want to find out the extent of convergence among the various parties on the component parts of the institutions, we need to examine those components. Presumably, there is at least convergence on the belief that there should be an Assembly. We might start falling apart on whether there should be 108 Members, whether it should be elected by single transferable vote, or whether it should have scrutiny Committees. Surely we should examine each element of the institutions to find out what we are agreed on and what we are not. Dr Farren: Many of these issues were discussed during the review of the operation of the agreement. The types of headings that Peter suggests are probably more appropriate than our current loose and unlinked set of headings. The secretariat has extracted this list from presentations and interrogations in this Committee. Mr P Robinson: By its nature, therefore, this is where we disagree rather than agree. Dr Farren: Yes. However, I would not present these for any further elaboration in the manner in which they have been presented. That would lead to a lot of unnecessary repetition. However, we do need to look at the institutions. I questioned whether we could address the Belfast Agreement and the comprehensive agreement under “Institutional issues”. I do not think that I will ever convert the DUP into saying that it formally accepts the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement. That will not happen. However, we must address the operation of the institutions that were established under the Good Friday Agreement, because both the parties that accepted the agreement and those that did not have identified how the operation of those institutions might be improved. We can look at whether the Assembly should be of the same size as it is at present, or whether it should be larger or smaller. Parties gave different views about that during the review. There are also issues relating to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — the election of the Ministers to those offices and their functions. There are also concerns about collectivity and accountability within the Executive, and we may also have to examine the need for the Government Departments that exist. We could order the debate that we might enter into over the next few weeks by taking the various headings of the institutions and working through from the Assembly and the Executive to the North/South and the east-west. That would sweep up issues related to the voting systems, etc, that are listed. One issue that is outside that scope is the reform of the RPA; that could be taken separately. If we were to proceed in some way similar to what I have attempted to outline, we might be able to have all of the parties’ positions identified where there is agreement on the kind of changes — if any — that we want, or no changes but agreement to keep things as they are. That could be stated explicitly, but it would be clear anyway from what the parties had said. The debate would then be honed down to the issues where there is no convergence. These discussions will not finish at the end of August. Mr P Robinson: There are issues on which people will want to see some movement before devolution takes place, but they will not necessarily expect them to be in operation. For instance, people might think that 108 Members is too many for the Assembly, but they would not expect that to be resolved before devolution. In some cases, it would be sufficient to have a process under way, rather than having all issues resolved for the date of devolution. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): How do we want to proceed? Mr McFarland: Some sensible ideas have been suggested, and if we proceed as Peter and Séan have outlined, then we have a logical structure to move through, and we can record positions as we go. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The list includes the Belfast Agreement, the Assembly, the Executive, departmental Committees, Government Departments, the North/South Ministerial Council, the North/South implementation bodies, east-west issues, the British-Irish Council, the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, the Civic Forum, the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission and the RPA, which falls slightly outside the remit of the Preparation for Government Committee, but it certainly affects us — Mr Murphy: The British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body should also be on that list. Dr Farren: Are human rights issues not being addressed at the meetings on Fridays? 11.15 am The Chairman (Mr Molloy): They will be, yes. Do members want the Committee Clerks to draw up a list under those headings or do they want to suggest a list? Mr P Robinson: We are not just talking about the institutions; there are issues about the voting system to, and within, the Assembly and the ministerial code. They are issues in themselves. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members want to make suggestions? Mr P Robinson: Officials could produce as comprehensive a list as possible, which could be open-ended so that members can add to it. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Would members like to call witnesses or have presentations from outside organisations on any of those issues? Mr McFarland: At the last meeting we spoke about time not being on our side. The Committee may wish to call witnesses who have a particular expertise, but colleagues around this table are aware that we have been at this for years; most members know the ins and outs of most of the issues. The Committee may wish to seek professional advice on particular aspects, legal or whatever, but we may waste too much time because all witnesses within a certain grouping must be called, otherwise people get upset. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): If the Committee wishes to call witnesses, even at a later stage, the Committee Clerks must be given a list as early as possible. If parties have suggestions, the Committee Clerks can make applications. Mr Murphy: I am not convinced that we need any witnesses. The institutional issues need to be resolved by the parties. I am not quite sure whether somebody can introduce an imaginative suggestion about some other way of resolving this matter. Chairman, you have a list of headings. Under “Assembly”, for example, parties have identified a number of topics; they could be broken down into subheadings, under which we could agree issues for discussion. That might be a way to move forward. We could move down through the institutions one by one, list the issues of importance to parties and work through them to find areas of agreement, putting to one side those issues on which we cannot reach agreement. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Peter has made the point that some issues must be resolved before the institutions could get up and running. At this stage, they could be listed and prioritised because they may stop the institutions from getting up and running. Mr Murphy: Mr Chairman, there would be differences of views on that. In our view, none of the issues has to be resolved before the institutions are restored. If we have time, it would be practical and welcome to resolve some of them, but none of them, we would concede, would be a precondition to re-establishing the institutions. However, I do not see any reason that parties cannot identify issues that they wish to see resolved before the institutions are returned. Dr Farren: I want to make a similar point. Parties will identify issues that, if not resolved, they believe will prevent devolution. In earlier presentations, the SDLP has said that the basic conditions that brought about the collapse of the operation of the institutions no longer exist and that we should, therefore, be back in business. I recognise that we cannot be. If there are issues that we can resolve, and that it would be helpful to resolve, let us try to do that. There will be no agreement among parties on which issues must be resolved before devolution can happen. Therefore, we should just go ahead with discussing the issues and let parties say whatever they wish. Mr P Robinson: Agreement is not necessary. If there is an issue that you believe must be resolved before devolution, it is not just your problem; it is mine as well. Likewise, if we have problems and we indicate that we cannot see how powers can be devolved until x, y and z are resolved, it becomes your problem as well. Agreement is not necessary. It is sufficient for parties to state their case. Dr Farren: Agreement on what the issues are is unnecessary. That is what I am saying. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The DUP say that there are some issues that must be resolved. It is important to have those matters clarified, whether people agree with them or not. At least we will know that those are the priorities for one party. Mr P Robinson: Are we then saying that, for every party except the DUP, nothing needs to be resolved before devolution? Mr McFarland: We have identified a raft of issues that people have problems with. However, as Peter Robinson said, we can solve this problem only when everyone is in agreement, or when everyone can live with whatever is proposed. This is a scoping exercise aimed at identifying issues; if we start delving too deeply into the psychology of who is comfortable with what, we will not get past first base. We were going well until now. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I do not wish to create problems, but it is important to place the issues up front, so that members can prioritise them, and so that we can try to deal with them. I do not think that that is point scoring. Mrs Long: Unless we identify and address the issues, it will not be possible to restore devolution. However, it would be folly to say that other issues that could lead to the restored institutions being continually destabilized are not as important as the major barriers to setting up an Executive. We have already heard reference to the matter of public confidence in the institutions and in members around the table and colleagues outside the room. Constant instability within restored institutions will not help to boost public confidence. We should try to make the restored institutions as stable as possible. There are issues that may not be barriers to the setting up of an Executive, but which limit the ability of that Executive to function normally, well, and in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. From that perspective, it is equally important to address those matters. The lowest common denominator — identifying the issues — has been discussed, but we must also try to identify some solutions to those problems. That is part of our responsibility. If we come up with problems, we must also come up with potential solutions. We must be prepared to discuss and question one another about those potential solutions. We may not want to negotiate, but most members, when they are discussing problems, can see at the back of their minds ways to resolve those problems. That should be placed on record, so that it is clear where each party stands on individual issues. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): How do members wish to proceed? Can we reach agreement that clerks provide a paper on identifying the issues within the sections that we discussed: the Assembly; the Executive; North/South issues; east-west matters; and the Review of Public Administration? Mr P Robinson: There has been a question-and-answer session of five or six hours for two of the parties, and of I do not know how long for the others. If, in that period, the parties have not set out the issues that they require to be addressed, they have not been doing their job very effectively. I presume that if the officials search through all the Committee’s work thus far, they will see all the issues that need to be resolved before devolution can be restored. A list compiled on that basis should surely cover everything. Mr McFarland: In our various discussions parties raised issues that did not necessarily have to be resolved before restoration. They also raised issues that had arisen from the first Assembly: suggestions that might have helped the Assembly to run better but not necessarily matters over which people would die in a ditch. There were degrees of concern about those. Mr P Robinson: I return to Naomi’s point. I do not know whether the list comes in two columns rather than one — a list of issues that have to be resolved before devolution can move forward; and issues that would improve devolution when it was restored. Mr Ford: It is potentially then a list of three — Mr P Robinson: Alternatives. Mr Ford: No. The list should contain that which has to be resolved; that which, if it is not resolved, could destabilise the Assembly after restoration; and that which we might need to do something about at some stage in the future. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I do not think that the Clerks can be expected to do that, because they would be making a political judgement. Mr Ford: I agree. Mr P Robinson: They make a political judgement when they decide in which column items belong. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): When the parties were cross-examined, we found that there was no clear line on most of the issues: did a particular issue have to be resolved before 24 November or could it be discussed in future? That is where it becomes more difficult. Mr P Robinson: If each of the parties was asked to make a written submission about issues that it saw as obstacles — The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There were quite a few obstacles, and some of them had longer tails than others. Mr McFarland: If the staff list the issues, we can have a meeting to put them into columns; then the parties can highlight issues that are neuralgic to them. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Surely the list is not so long that each party cannot spell out its priority issues now. That would give the Clerks some political guidance from the parties instead of leaving them to make judgements. Dr Farren: I am a wee bit concerned about the direction in which we propose to move. As I tried to say earlier, a more acceptable and neutral exercise for our secretariat would be to make a list of the institutions. Let us take, for example, the number of Members. If a party does not agree with the number 108, it will say so. It is not a case of saying, “Unless we start with 70 or 80 and have an election before devolution, we will not agree to devolution.” I do not think that that will happen. I am just using it as an illustration. Parties may say that unless nominations for First Minister and Deputy First Minister are as set out in the proposals for a comprehensive agreement, they will not allow devolution to take place. Parties will set out their positions on the items listed under the various institutional headings, such as the Assembly, the Executive and so on. We should not set up columns and leave the secretariat to decide which unresolved issues would be obstacles to devolution. That would put the secretariat in an invidious position. It is not the most helpful way to proceed. Mr McFarland: Returning to when we were producing the broad headings and preparing to discuss them in turn may reveal the parties’ positions. It would be slower, but it would be useful to have time to think as we go along. When we talk round the table, some issues may become less important, as some parties may have received reassurances or other parties’ positions may have moved. If we go back to producing a list of headings and begin to discuss them — 11.30 am The Chairman (Mr Molloy): My only concern is that we will continue to produce lists without resolving the issues. There have been two lists and there may be a further one, but, if that is how members wish to proceed, that is not a problem. Mrs Long: Dr Farren’s suggestion on how to proceed is sensible. The factors that parties believe must be addressed prior to restoration will become apparent only during a negotiation process in which all the issues are brought into the mix. Some issues may be interconnected, therefore, if some are partially addressed, others may become less important. It would be wrong to put those into fixed lists, because that would create barriers before we even begin. It would be more constructive for parties to state the difficulties that they perceive are in the current arrangements and then try to move that on to their suggested solutions rather than listing things in order of importance. If we did that, we would automatically begin to tie parties into particular positions, and that would not be useful. Mr Murphy: I share the Chairman’s concern about producing more lists; however, the list that we have now does not allow for a step-by-step discussion through the institutional issues, because we could hop from one item to another and add various topics. Therefore some restructuring may be necessary. Stating the issues within those broad headings may assist the Clerk and Committee staff who are compiling the list. I am not averse to discussing the RPA, but I wonder how such a topic fits under the institutional discussion. How can we achieve consensus on it or resolve any of the outstanding issues? Representatives from political parties sit on various RPA committees, but, if people wish to discuss the matter at this Committee, I will not shy away from it. However, we may be biting off more than we can chew by including the RPA, especially given our time frame and the number of headings that we already have. Mr McFarland: It is of direct interest to the Assembly to discuss the RPA in relation to issues that impinge upon the Assembly, such as the number of Departments and what will transfer from Departments to the RPA or to councils, because if we are trying to find — Mr P Robinson: The number of Departments is the issue, not the RPA. The RPA is a factor that will determine how many Departments there will be. The more power that goes to local government, the less need there will be for so many Departments. Mr McFarland: The number of Departments can be discussed under the RPA. However, the powers that will be passed to councils from the Department of the Environment (DOE) or the Department for Regional Development (DRD), for example, may impinge upon whether it is worthwhile amalgamating Departments. The RPA is an item under the “Institutional issues” heading, but it may not need to be a separate point, given that parties are dealing with the function of the RPA elsewhere. However, it may impinge upon the issue of Departments and how the Assembly functions. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is important that the Committee discusses the Assembly and the institutions and the knock-on effects that those will have on the RPA, as I do not wish to sideline the RPA. Do members wish to list any items, or do they want to leave that to the Clerks? Dr Farren: Although we have not yet used the terms, we are essentially considering the institutional issues under strand one, strand two and strand three of the agreement. They seem to be the most comprehensive headings and will likely form an agenda — unless there is something outside those that I have not mentioned. If we took the issues relating to strands one, two and three and spent the next two or three meetings working through those issues as best as we can, we would identify all — Mr P Robinson: Are you suggesting strands one, two and three as headings? Dr Farren: Yes, and sub-headings would come from each of those. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): To link those groups together? Dr Farren: It seems that that is what we are addressing. Mr Campbell: Surely that would have to be in the broadest sense; you are talking about very broad headings. Dr Farren: They are broad headings, but within each heading are particular aspects of the Northern institutions, the North/South institutions, the all-Ireland institutions and the east-west institutions, and, insofar as there are inter-relationships between them, they would have to be addressed. Mr P Robinson: Everything will fall under those three headings. Dr Farren: That is what I thought. Strands one, two and three are set out in the Good Friday Agreement and could be used as headings. Parties may be happy with a particular issue and want it to continue, or, if they want an issue changed, they should say so. We should proceed in a logical and structured way. Mr P Robinson: If we use strands one, two and three as headings, what are the sub-headings under strand one? Dr Farren: The Assembly, the Executive and the voting systems are all issues. Mr P Robinson: Are we leaving the headings to the Committee Clerks? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It would be much easier if we could decide the headings, which the Committee Clerks could then tweak out. We are considering strand one of the Belfast Agreement. Will the comprehensive agreement be part of that discussion? Mr McFarland: I thought that we agreed that the Belfast Agreement and the comprehensive agreement contain all the issues we would discuss: the Belfast Agreement is the original document; the comprehensive agreement seeks to change aspects of it. Those two issues could be taken out, given that we have decided on a format based on strands one, two and three. There may be other issues of particular concern that may need to be spelt out within those three headings. If strands one, two and three are the headings, we need to ask the parties for their particular issues for discussion and see whether they fit under those headings. Does that make sense? Mr P Robinson: If we agree that there should be an Assembly elected by single transferable vote and multi-member constituencies, are we not better to say that we agree? Or are we only talking about issues on which we disagree? Mr McNarry: We need a structure to follow; otherwise we will jump from one issue to the next. We have been prone to that over the past few weeks. If we are agreed on the headings and are looking for columns to follow, are we saying — and I hope that we are —that there are issues that we accept, issues on which we will seek improvement and on which we will largely focus, and problem issues? We need to present the issues and allow the columns to be filled in from our discussions. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I would like the parties to present the issues, if that is possible. The Committee Clerks can put the issues together and fill in the columns. We accept that the workings of the Assembly are part and parcel of the issues. Mr McNarry: We should focus on the positives as well as the negatives. If the template is strands one, two and three, will strand one be discussed at the next meeting? Do we look at the positive and negative aspects of strand one and see what needs to be improved? Mr P Robinson: Before the Committee meets again, can we agree the template and issues for discussion on strand one? It is a case of whether members leave it to the Clerks — and I am sure that they are delighted at the prospect — or whether we put forward a list of issues for discussion. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It would be useful if the Committee provided a list of issues for the Clerks. If the Clerks were to draw up a list of issues, the Committee would lose a day either scrapping half of it or adding to it. Mr McFarland: Under strand one, the Assembly and Executive are sub-headings, and voting falls into one of those. Is there a third sub-heading? Mr McNarry: Departments. Mr Murphy: That comes under the Executive sub-heading. Mr McFarland: Under the Assembly heading are First Minister and Deputy First Minister issues, voting systems and so on. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Committee structure and scrutiny Committees would also come under that sub-heading. Dr Farren: There are issues relating to safeguards. The sub-headings under strand one of the Good Friday Agreement are: “The Assembly, Safeguards, Operation of the Assembly, Executive Authority, Legislation, Relations with other institutions.” Those encompass most issues that parties have raised. Other matters may fall outside those sub-headings, but they already exist and have been agreed. Whatever the level of disagreement now, the Good Friday Agreement has been the basis on which we have operated the institutions, insofar as we were able. Mr P Robinson: There have been Assemblies, Committees and Executives in existence before the Belfast Agreement was conceived. Their roots are not particularly in the Belfast Agreement. The list of issues for discussion starts with the election to the Assembly, the number of Assembly Members, the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, the formation of Committees and proportionality. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The setting-up of the Executive would also be part of that. Mr P Robinson: I was taking the Assembly and Executive as two separate categories. I assume that the ministerial code, and whether it should be a statutory duty or should be revised, comes under the Executive heading. Also under that heading are: the number of Departments; how Ministers are appointed; how the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are appointed — if, indeed, there is to be a First Minister and Deputy First Minister; how decisions are taken within the Executive and how appointments to outside bodies are made. Dr Farren: I want to mention safeguards, by which I mean issues relating to the petition of concern. Mr Murphy: The establishment of the Committee of the Centre also comes under the Assembly sub-heading. I am not sure that legislation relating to suspension necessarily falls under Assembly or Executive, but we need to discuss that under the sub-heading of institutions. Mr P Robinson: The role of Committees, which concerns the Committee of the Centre and its power to scrutinise and call Ministers, is another issue. Mr Ford: I appreciate the effort to put issues into either the Assembly or Executive categories. However, given that Seán referred to safeguards and that we have discussed accountability, it may be necessary to examine those two issues, which, in many senses, lie between the Assembly and the Executive, as a separate category. We have also missed out, possibly deliberately, the Civic Forum, which is a strand-one institution. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are taking the Assembly as one part. The Executive and the Civic Forum would be other parts. Mr Ford: We need to discuss safeguards and accountability as a specific issue. If we discuss matters pertaining to the Executive, we may deal with some of those issues, but we need to flag them up. 11.45 am Dr Farren: Did we mention the issues relating to the Pledge of Office and the ministerial code of conduct? Mr P Robinson: There is a ministerial code and a ministerial code of conduct; they are separate issues. Dr Farren: Yes, that is what I meant. Mr P Robinson: The relationship between the Assembly and the Executive does not fall into either category, but it combines both. Mr Ford: That is the accountability point. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Accountability both ways. Mr McFarland: The issue of the role and effectiveness of Committees arose in the first Assembly. I do not know whether it is worth chucking it into the mix, but, technically, Committees were able to introduce legislation in their own right. However, their budget was extremely limited. A Committee that wanted to introduce legislation would have needed legal advice and a team to develop legislation, and that was not available. As far as I am aware, no Committee introduced legislation in the first Assembly. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Clerk has just told me that that was being developed at the time. The role, powers and resources of Committees will be examined as part of our discussions. Mr Murphy: It was more a question of resources than powers: they had the powers, but they did not have the resources. Dr Farren: They had powers over secondary legislation but not over primary legislation. Mr P Robinson: The review process is also an issue. We talked earlier about issues that had to be resolved for devolution to be restored and about issues that could be dealt with later. The comprehensive agreement set up an institutional review committee to deal with issues that were not essential at the beginning of discussions. It was felt that that was a better way of proceeding than waiting for five-year reviews and so forth. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): So there would be a committee dealing with ongoing reviews? Mr P Robinson: It is up to us to consider whether it should, but we should at least include it as a heading on the list. What about the issue of community designation? Does that not need its own heading? Mr Ford: I thought that that issue was fairly well highlighted in discussions on voting systems. However, if the DUP wishes to include the abolition of designations as a priority, I am happy to agree. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will include designations and voting patterns and structures as an overall issue. Mr McFarland: Have we included the number of MLAs and the question of dual mandate? Mr P Robinson: We should. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Dual — or triple — mandate. A Member: Or quadruple. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Any other issues? We have a list, albeit not a full one, but, as we said earlier, other issues may arise from it. If we are flexible, we can add to it. The Clerks can identify issues as they come up in the submissions. Mr P Robinson: It would put more responsibility on the parties if, rather than wait until next Monday, they contact the Clerks if issues occur to them. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That would be easier. Mr McFarland: Are we dealing with the Executive separately? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): At this stage we are dealing with categories. We dealt first with the Assembly and strand one. The Executive comes into that as well. Mr McFarland: There are several issues concerning the Executive. The first — where power is vested — arose when the Assembly was suspended. We discovered that, in 1921, power was not vested in Parliament or its Ministers, but in the Departments. Therefore it did not matter what happened, and that was why it was so easy to suspend the Assembly. Power is vested from Westminster into the Departments and exercised by the permanent secretaries. If the Assembly is to fly properly, we need to consider whether that power should be seconded from Westminster to the Assembly and from the Assembly to Ministers. That is not at all clear. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That would come under the suspension legislation as well. Mr McFarland: It is also about the Executive and how it functions and about Ministers’ powers. If power is not given to the Minister but to the Department and the permanent secretary, the Minister can be disposed of at any time and, indeed, the Assembly ignored. An Assembly in which power was vested would be slightly more difficult to dismiss. Mr P Robinson: Let us be clear about where we are going on this. The issue came up in November 2004. If power were vested in the Assembly, ultimate authority would rest with it. That is completely different from either the Belfast Agreement or the proposals in the comprehensive agreement. It is a more sensible and democratic proposal. We would be vesting power in the Assembly, and only the Assembly could discharge that power. It would no doubt do it on the basis of ministerial recommendations, just as Westminster does. The comprehensive agreement and the Belfast Agreement were more Executive-based devolution. Vesting power in the Assembly would make it very much as I would like it to be — a parliamentary democracy. Mr McFarland: At present, power rests with the Departments and the permanent secretaries and has done since 1921. Whether we want it to move from there to the Executive or to the Assembly is an issue that needs to be examined. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is part of the discussion, although we cannot cover it entirely today. Mrs Long: Chairman, I do not wish to add to the list. I simply want to clarify when the parties will receive a draft of the list so that we can add to it if we need to before next Monday. It would be helpful for all of us to see the complete list as soon as possible. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It might be available on Wednesday. If members have additional items, they can be included for next Monday’s meeting. Mr P Robinson: May I tiptoe and drop in the subject of disqualification as well. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Why not? We have had everything else. We need more detail on disqualification. Mr P Robinson: It could be disqualification of Members, of the Executive, or of parties. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We now need to consider issues relating to strand two. Dr Farren: We have to address the issue of the nomination of Ministers in a way that obviates the difficulties that were encountered when the First Minister refused to nominate Ministers from a particular party to participate in meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council. Mr Murphy: I presumed that that was addressed under ministerial code and ministerial code of conduct issues such as rights of participation and the requirement to participate. I suppose that it can be dealt with under either heading. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Assembly and the Executive have to deal with a ministerial code and a ministerial code of conduct. However, there would be a knock-on effect on strand two through the North/South institutions, so it is a matter of linking the two. Mr Murphy: That could be dealt with under either heading. Mr Ford: We have highlighted that, in any event, there will be a certain amount of overlap, but, to me, the strand two issues concern the operation of the NSMC and other cross-border bodies. Compared to the amount of discussion that we have had on strand one matters in the past, I would have thought that those two issues would subsume most North/South points. Mr Campbell: Further to David’s point, the line of accountability of NSMC issues to the Assembly is another point of discussion. Mr Ford: Yes. I am conscious of your concerns about accountability and of Seán’s points about the practical operation of the NSMC. Mr McFarland: We need to discuss the interdependency of the institutions. After November 2002, we discovered that, in theory, the NSMC should have been suspended but was not. Sanctioned by both Governments, the North/South bodies intended to beaver ahead, when they were supposed to be operating on a care-and-maintenance basis. There was quite a row at the time because they were pressing on with issues. If the Assembly is not functioning, the NSMC should not function. That needs to be either reiterated or discussed. Mr P Robinson: Certain issues relate to the implementation bodies. Dr Farren: Are you suggesting that their number should increase? Mr P Robinson: Under efficiency grounds, we may want to reduce their number. Dr Farren: I see. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members want to raise any other strand two issues? Mr P Robinson: In the context of strand two, there is the question of whether a North/South body is a stand-alone creature or whether it should be part of the British-Irish Council. Mr Ford: The North/South parliamentary tier also occurred to me, but there may not be that much fuss about it. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will move on to strand three issues. Mr McFarland: The operation of the British-Irish Council and its secretariat come under strand three. Mr P Robinson: Whether there should be a new Council of the Isles is another issue. Dr Farren: In addition to the present one? Mr P Robinson: Encompassing the British-Irish Council. Mr McFarland: The British-Irish Interparliamentary Body (BIIPB) is a strand three issue, and it takes its genus from the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. It would be logical if it took its origins from the Belfast Agreement or whatever, because everyone could then participate in it. Of course, that was not the case in the first Assembly. There were problems, such as when the BIIPB discussed transport and the Committee for Regional Development was unable to meet it. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That relates to the workings of the BIIPB. Dr Farren: You can suggest whatever you like, obviously, but I did not hear any justification for that. Mr McFarland: The British-Irish Interparliamentary Body is a creature of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. Neither my party nor the DUP sat on it because of its origins. We tried to persuade the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to talk to the London and Dublin Governments to redesignate it as a body that originated from the Belfast Agreement, with the result that everybody could join it. However, that never happened. If an all-islands interparliamentary body is to be created, everyone must be able to comfortably join it. Mr P Robinson: Whether everyone can join is also an issue. Under the present process, only a select number are appointed. Any Member of Parliament can join any of the other parliamentary bodies in which we are involved. However, other Members of Parliament are denied access to the BIIPB because only the chosen few are invited to sit on it. Dr Farren: Members who need to be involved in any discussions that we might have on strands two and three do not participate on the Committee on the Preparation for Government. They would therefore need to be apprised of what we intend to discuss, and we might need to provide an opportunity for them to be present. 12.00 noon The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes, particularly if they were to appear as witnesses or to give evidence. Dr Farren: They are part of the decision-making process for any changes to the operation of the institutions. Therefore, it would be rather presumptuous of the Committee to — Mr McNarry: Whom do you have in mind, precisely? Dr Farren: The two Governments, of course. Mrs Long: Is it not the case that the Committee was formed to scope the issues from the perspective of its members? Its findings will be matters for later negotiation. Members of the Committee are not here to take decisions; they are here to scope the issues, to state their party positions, and to put forward any suggestions. Indeed, members may reach agreement, which would be nice for a change. However, although members may reach agreement in Committee, they then have to negotiate with others to bring about those changes. That is fine, but the Committee is here to scope the issues as they are seen from the perspective of its members. Mr P Robinson: Otherwise, Seán would have wanted Her Majesty’s Government at the strand one negotiations. [Laughter.] Dr Farren: I would have had no objections to that. The British Government are not essential to the operation of the Assembly and the Executive. They are essential to whether the Assembly and the Executive can operate, but that is a different matter. Mr Campbell: Of course, for strand three issues, it may be difficult logistically to bring over the Manx Government and the authorities from the Channel Islands. Dr Farren: At the same time, does the Committee not need to hear the voices of all those who are entitled to be present? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It may be possible to request submissions from the relevant bodies. Dr Farren: It may well be. Mr P Robinson: If the Committee were reaching agreement, that would be a good idea. Mr McFarland: It is scoping. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The options available to the Committee are that it can call witnesses or it can request papers from relevant bodies. Dr Farren: To make a useful contribution at the scoping stage, it would not be unhelpful for the Committee to hear the voices of those who could also be involved in the process. Mr McNarry: Perhaps Seán could leave that suggestion in abeyance until such times as the Committee reaches that point and decides whether it would like to apprise those who could also be involved? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Committee is not taking decisions. It is suggesting issues that may be discussed. Members do not have to finalise those issues today. Mr P Robinson: Could the Clerks contact the NIO to ask Minister Hanson to provide them with a copy of his report of the detailed discussions that took place about six to eight months ago with all of the parties? I understood that such a report had been, or was being, prepared. It would cover a lot of those issues, and the Committee might find some useful headings in it. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members agreed that the Clerks ask whether such a report is available? Members indicated assent. Mr P Robinson: We might all want to see it. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It might be useful to see what has been said. Members have produced quite a substantial list of issues. As was said at the start of the meeting, time is one of the main factors in putting all of this together. Therefore, perhaps we should move on. Parties can approach the Clerks if they have issues that they want to raise. Alternatively, they can bring them up at next Monday’s meeting. The next item of business is the Secretary of State’s draft Programme for Government, which he suggested that the Committee considers. Members discussed it briefly at the last meeting and decided to leave it on the agenda for this meeting. Mr McNarry: May I propose that the Committee notes the issue. Mr P Robinson: Chairman, can you continue to keep the topic on the agenda? Am I right to think that the Committee has enough to keep itself going? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The main reason that I can give to keep the item on the agenda is to allow the Clerks adequate time to complete any preparatory work that they need to do in advance of a discussion. Do members have any other issues that they feel should be included? Mr McFarland: At the last meeting, Seán mentioned timescales. Four debates have been timetabled for 4, 5, 11 and 12 September. As I recall, Seán suggested that, as the Committee is firming up its programme of work, it should, perhaps, give early warning that it might need an extra week or so before it publishes its report. It would give us a bit of leeway. The economic subgroup has to make its report by 18 August. That seems to be quite tight. You might ask for an extra week or more. If the Committee were to take that decision now, it would allow us to plan better. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Any views? The Secretary of State has indicated that the first debates will take place on 4 and 5 September. That means that the Business Committee would need to be notified by 25 August, and this Committee would have to have its work done before that. Are the parties agreed that we should contact the Secretary of State in relation to having an extra week to draw up the reports? Mr Murphy: He gave us a directive to establish two subgroups, and we have not done that either. The directives do not seem to matter that much. Regardless of the Secretary of State’s schedule, or that of the NIO, if we feel that this is becoming a fruitful exercise then we should take whatever time we need. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Can we advise the Secretary of State that the parties are in agreement that we need an extra week, but still work towards the programme that we have, so as to meet that if possible? Members indicated assent. Mr McNarry: The economic subgroup is also looking for an extension. Has it contacted this Committee regarding the process that we have just agreed? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): No. Mr P Robinson: If things are getting very tight, we could ask the Secretary of State to put back the 24 November deadline. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I think that that is beyond the remit of this Committee. Mr McNarry: On the point that I raised, what is the mechanism? Somewhere in Hansard you are reported as saying that there was flexibility on those dates. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have noticed all along that the Secretary of State will accommodate this Committee if it has a programme of work. The mechanism would be that the economic subgroup would contact this Committee and ask for an extension of time. Mr McNarry: Could this Committee write to the economic subgroup? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I will be at the economic subgroup tomorrow, so perhaps we can get the Clerks to deal with it. Mr McNarry: Will you deal with that, then? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Mr McNarry: Thank you. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Moving on, a draft programme of work has been set out by the Clerks. Any comments on that? Dr Farren: Can we anticipate morning and afternoon sessions next week? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I think that that will probably be necessary if we are to get the business through. We are talking about one day per issue, although there is the possibility of extending into the next day. Look at it on the basis of having a full day. Lunch will be provided in the room. You are not going to get out at all. Any other business? Do parties want to submit further papers on law and order issues or equality, or are we happy to proceed as we are? Mr McFarland: We have spent hours and hours, and the issues are there. We should start by going through the same exercise that we have just had, for both policing and justice and the rights issue, of fitting those into some structure in order that they can be discussed. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): If parties want to bring researchers, they can be part of the meeting as well, at the back. Madam Speaker suggested this morning that her adviser might also attend, if members are content with that. Any other issues? Mr P Robinson: Did I understand you to say that parties can bring an adviser or researcher? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Each party can bring an adviser or a researcher who can sit at the back. That will afford some continuity of party presence, and it will be of benefit should a party wish to receive advice on any of its papers. That is an additional resource for a party when dealing with a particular item at the Committee on the Preparation for Government. Mr McFarland: That is a reasonable suggestion, considering that the people attending the Committee are changing, due to the holidays. That gives some parties a degree of continuity, knowing that they can have people in different meetings to keep track of what is going on and being discussed. Mr P Robinson: That is a sensible decision; I was not aware of it. Adjourned at 12.11 pm. |