COMMITTEE ON THE
PREPARATION FOR GOVERNMENT

Monday 21 August 2006

Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings:
The Chairmen, Mr Francie Molloy and Mr Jim Wells
Mr P J Bradley
Mr Gregory Campbell
Dr Seán Farren
Mr David Ford
Mrs Naomi Long
Mr Michael McGimpsey
Mr David McNarry
Mr John O’Dowd
Mrs Patricia O’Rawe
Mr Ian Paisley Jnr
Mr Peter Robinson

The Committee met at 10.03 am.

(The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.)

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The meeting is scheduled to last until 4.00 pm, and lunch will be provided at 12.20 pm, when we will have a short break. I have read the Hansard reports of the last few meetings, and I was quite disturbed to note that Hansard had had to include the line “Inaudible due to mobile phone interference” on several occasions. There were at least three interruptions in the last report. Clearly the message has not got through to everyone that such interference will result in some of what you say simply being obliterated from the record. It is important that we do not allow that to happen. I ask everyone in the room, including research staff, to please try to make Mr Burrowes’s life as easy as possible.

Have we any apologies and deputies?

Mr O’Dowd: Mrs O’Rawe and I are deputising for Mr Murphy and Ms Gildernew.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will there be a third member?

Mr O’Dowd: No, it will be just the two of us today.

Dr Farren: Mr Bradley is here for Dr McDonnell or Mr Durkan.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will you have a third member?

Dr Farren: No, I do not anticipate that there will be.

Mr Ford: I am here, and Mrs Long will be here shortly.

Mr McGimpsey: I am substituting for Mr McFarland, who is unavailable. Mr McNarry will be here shortly.

Mr P Robinson: Mr Campbell and I are substituting for anybody but Mr Paisley Jnr, who is expected to arrive later.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I remind members that the quorum is seven. We need to watch that carefully, as we do not have much leeway today. Members should do a head count before leaving the room. I think that you all have been here before. Mr Bradley, have you sat on this Committee before?

Mr P J Bradley: Yes.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There are no further declarations of interest, so we can pass over that.

Members should have received the minutes from the meeting of 14 August. Does anyone have any additions or corrections? Do members agree that they are a true and accurate record?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next item on the agenda is the draft ministerial code. It sets out in detail the ground rules and procedures for the exercise of the duties and responsibilities of Ministers of the Assembly as set out in the Belfast Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It applies to Ministers of the Executive Committee and junior Ministers.

At the last meeting, Mr Peter Robinson asked two important questions: first, whether any legislation applies to decision-making by the Executive; and secondly, to what extent Executive decision-making is governed by custom and practice. It is a complex matter, and the Committee staff have investigated it. I will read their advice for the record:

“The code makes reference to parts of the 1998 Act but it appears that there is no other relevant legislative provision in this respect.”

That relates to Mr Robinson’s first question about legislation. I will read the rest, as it is quite complicated:

“Section 3.19 of the draft code covers decision-making by the Executive Committee. The Code was drafted prior to the first meeting of the Executive in 1999 and was adopted by the Executive Committee in February 2000 (specifically the Executive “adopted” Para 4.4 (notifications to the Assembly) of the draft Code at its meeting on 14 December 1999; “agreed” at the meeting on 18 January 2000 that Section 3 (Executive Committee) should come into immediate effect; and “endorsed” the remainder of the draft Ministerial Code, subject to review within 6 months … The review never happened. I am advised by officials that custom and practice did not apply because the Ministerial Code was used and that it was treated as binding by participants.

The Ministerial Code’s requirements are not set down in legislation. While Ministers are expected to observe its provisions, they have no statutory backing.

At last week’s meeting the Committee agreed to request a copy of the draft Ministerial Code with a view to reaching an agreed position that can be put in legislation.”

That is the situation so far regarding the draft ministerial code and its present status. We will return to this issue, though members may wish to comment now on that specific information. We do not know why the review did not occur, unless Mr McGimpsey or Dr Farren can remember something from February 2000.

Mr McGimpsey: In relation to this? It was to be reviewed in six months; then, obviously, the Executive fell.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): This was not carried forward, then?

Mr McGimpsey: We had several discussions about the ministerial code. I assume that what we are looking at now is the ministerial code that we drew up at that stage, but we never got as far as adopting it.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): And when the Executive was re-formed in — was it February 2000?

Mr McGimpsey: The Executive was re-formed in June 2000.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): This was not brought forward as an issue for review?

Mr McGimpsey: My memory is that by and large we followed the provisions of this ministerial code. I have had a quick run through it and it is all familiar. That is what we followed and it is what we built up into the ministerial code. I could be wrong; I have not read this page by page, but it looks very familiar.

Mr P Robinson: At the previous meeting of the Committee we discussed whether the ministerial code had any statutory effect. It does not; there was a general view in the Committee that it should. However, on looking at the weight of the document, it is probably unreasonable to expect the whole of that ministerial code to become a schedule to legislation. Important elements of it — a core code, if you like — could become part of a legislative statutory code.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I detect from the minutes of the previous meeting that there seemed to be agreement on that. The question is, do we want to get into that issue now or do we want to come back to it?

Mr P Robinson: Please not.

Dr Farren: No, no.

Mr McGimpsey: As you are aware, part of the Pledge of Office is to comply with the ministerial code. Once the ministerial code is adopted, the Pledge of Office requires you to comply with it. The question of whether legislation is drafted around that, and what the consequences of breaking the Pledge of Office might be, takes us back to discussions we had at previous meetings about other issues.

Dr Farren: While there is probably a great deal in it that remains uncontroversial, it needs a more considered examination than we are able to give it at this time. Parties may want to submit more considered views on those aspects that definitely have to go into legislation and be underwritten in some kind of statutory way, and also whether, in the light of our discussions, any changes and additions need to be made. There is a responsibility on the parties to make their submissions on matters that they consider important over the next few weeks.

Mr O’Dowd: Without wishing to annoy Mr Ford first thing on a Monday morning, I think that we agreed during the earlier discussions of this Committee that the ministerial code would be a matter for discussion for the parties in the Executive. It should be one of the first tasks of any new Executive to discuss the ministerial code and put it onto a statutory footing.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members will remember the letter we got from the Secretary of State outlining the work programme from now to 24 November. We have to deal with this in October, because it is in that schedule.

Mr Ford: I want to briefly respond to Mr O’Dowd, who I am sure was not trying to be disagreeable quite so early on a Monday morning. It may well be that it should be Ministers who address the ministerial code in the first instance, but it is surely something that would require the approval of the full Assembly if it were to be adopted into legislation. So, all Members of the Assembly, including those who might or might not be in an Executive formed on whatever basis an Executive might be formed on, would have a say at that point.

Mr O’Dowd: Most certainly.

Mr P Robinson: We may be getting slightly confused about the ministerial code and its statutory effect. There is a code of conduct provision in schedule 4 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; it has the core principles of a ministerial code in it. I would take it that insofar as the Pledge of Office requires Ministers to comply with the ministerial code of conduct, it is referring to the statutory code of conduct in schedule 4, which is framed in very broad, general terms. I assume that the issue then is whether the code of conduct is what we are describing as a ministerial code, or whether it is this code of conduct that we want to either elaborate on or add to.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There are other issues. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 was unheard of at that stage, and it might now have to be included in the code of conduct. No matter what happens, some updating will be necessary.

10.15 am

Mr P Robinson: I am not sure about that. Compliance with the 2000 Act is a legislative requirement. It is not up to Ministers to choose whether to obey it or not; they are legally required to do so — although there is probably wriggle room.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There are 23 exemptions in the 2000 Act.

Mr P Robinson: Yes, but they are statutory exemptions. By law, Ministers do not have a choice; they must operate in accordance with the 2000 Act.

The purpose of the ministerial code is not to duplicate what exists in law, but to set standards for ministerial behaviour. The code of conduct has some very broad-brush requirements. Having looked at the detailed ministerial code, I assume that it is simply a more precise version of that general code of conduct. The bulk of the ministerial code is common sense.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It was unanimously agreed at the last meeting that the ministerial code should be put on a statutory footing. Perhaps we can leave that issue at this stage and move on to strand two of the agreement. Parties can discuss their positions at a later stage, although the content of the code does not seem to have generated much controversy. Are members happy enough to do that?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That being the case, I will adopt our usual policy of asking each party to give a short presentation on strand two and the North/South implementation bodies. There was a wee bit of debate on Friday because Mr Nesbitt objected to the DUP being asked to speak first. To avoid any further complaints, I will go back to calling each party in alphabetical order. I will stick religiously to that format from now until the end of the hearings. Unfortunately, that means that the Alliance Party will always be called first.

Mr Ford: The party could always use its formal name, “The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland”, if that would be of any help.

Mr P Robinson: The DUP could be the Ulster Democratic Party. [Laughter.]

Mr McGimpsey: I could agree not to object.

Mr Ford: My contribution on strand two will be fairly brief. The practical outworking of many of the North/South issues has been much less controversial than it was expected to be in the early days. Therefore, we have relatively few suggestions about the structures.

I will not go through everything in detail. We highlighted the issue of the accountability of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC). We saw virtue not only in individual Ministers reporting on individual meetings, but in an annual report, perhaps prepared by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister jointly with the Taoiseach and Tánaiste. Some questioning in the Assembly and the Oireachtas might also be involved, to enable everyone to get an overview of the NSMC’s work. In the past, individual meetings of individual strands have been examined in great detail, but little has been reported back on the overall structures.

The Alliance Party tabled a motion in the Assembly proposing the establishment of a North/South parliamentary tier, which would bring together members of the Assembly and the Oireachtas. Provision for such a parliamentary forum is mentioned in paragraph 18 of strand two of the agreement. Mr Chairman, you will recall that motion because you were one of the members who voted against it. Creating an opportunity for Back-Bench members of the two Parliaments to meet regularly to exchange information would undoubtedly bring benefits. It would allow us to move forward, and it would be of benefit to the many MLAs and TDs to encounter each other at that level.

The number of implementation bodies is fairly arbitrary. The agreement refers to 12 areas of co-operation and six implementation bodies. We are not fans of creating bodies for the sake of it. The task should be to identify areas where practical North/South co-operation would be of mutual benefit and to assess the best way of achieving that, which might or might not be through a further implementation body.

I am reminded of my experience as a member of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, when I kept a close eye on the operations of Ms Rodgers as Minister of Agriculture during the foot-and-mouth outbreak. I have no doubt that the greatest degree of North/South co-operation was shown at that time, when there were no institutional linkages at all, merely a telephone line between Bríd Rodgers and Joe Walsh. The Alliance Party seeks to encourage that spirit of co-operation, rather than creating structures purely for the sake of it.

That is all I wish to say at this point, although I may respond to members’ detailed comments.

Mr P Robinson: I will not immediately engage in considering the headings and the order in which they appear as a backcloth to our discussions.

The DUP’s view is that the two sections of this community look in different directions. The nationalist community clearly has a common culture — one might even say identity — with the Irish Republic. The unionist community has shared issues with the rest of the United Kingdom.

There is a clear advantage in recognising the value to Northern Ireland society of people’s ability to feel at ease within Northern Ireland and to feel that they have some relationship with the larger allegiances that they hold. In that context, a British Isles template that embraces both cultures and identities should be used. Within that, there can be compartments, whether east-west or North/South, but the overarching body should be a British Isles body within which both our traditions are fully embraced. That is how we can reach out beyond the boundaries of Northern Ireland. The DUP, therefore, argues for a central structure — a British Isles council with east-west and North/South compartments — rather than for separate corridors.

Several issues immediately come to mind concerning the North/South relationship. They are similar to those that we have already dealt with concerning the accountability of the decision-making process within that relationship. The existing arrangements leave much to be desired. There may have been a satisfactory working operation in practice, but the DUP requires more than custom and practice: we need a legal requirement for people to act in a certain way in relation to the decisions. Preferably — almost essentially — there must be a requirement for decisions to be agreed before Ministers take part in North/South structures.

Mr Ford’s first point was on the implementation bodies. The DUP strongly believes that many were set up solely for a political purpose as part of a process towards a united Ireland. The DUP does not share that goal. Pragmatism should be the governing feature of the North/South relationship. Quite frankly, some of those implementation bodies are not doing a full day’s work. They are very much for dress and show. Some of the personnel of those implementation bodies have approached the DUP and indicated how hard it is for them to find sufficient work to do.

There is a drive to increase the number of North/South bodies. The burden of our argument is that the number should be reduced, and that they should exist for real and practical purposes rather than to bolster the political ideology of one section of the community.

However, the DUP wants to have the kind of working relationships that ensure that common interests are pursued through co-operation and on a mutually satisfactory basis, so that people can feel comfortable that they are not being sucked towards a political end and that there are benefits for the community of which they are a part.

Mr O’Dowd: Clearly, the North/South bodies are an important facet of the agreement for the nationalist and republican community; they acknowledge, as Mr Robinson says, the Irish identity of a large section of our society and its wish to work on an all-Ireland basis with its neighbours.

Unionists have often said that they are comfortable with North/South bodies so long as they are practical. We have yet to find any facet of life on this island on which it is not practical to co-operate on an all-Ireland basis. All aspects of life can be covered within the remit of “North/Southism” or “all-Irelandism” — whatever you want to call it.

Clearly, Sinn Féin wants to increase, rather than restrict, the role of the bodies. If people within any of the implementation bodies find their role difficult, or do not have work to do, they are clearly not being motivated properly. They are not being given direction. That is partly due to this establishment being closed; there is no ministerial governance of the process. We must ensure that when the Executive is up and running, all facets of life are governed as efficiently as possible.

Sinn Féin calls for greater co-operation in areas such as community development, arts and heritage, economic co-operation and public investment, for example. With regard to the Review of Public Administration, council structures and community development are clearly areas that could be covered by North/South bodies.

Sinn Féin also wants expansion of the implementation bodies to cover issues such as justice, policing, social economy and energy, to name but a few. The ruling factor for Sinn Féin is practicality. No one has yet identified an area in which it is not practical for the people of the island to work in co-operation with each other.

Dr Farren: I listen with a degree of scepticism to assertions that we should address the whole North/South issue purely on the basis of pragmatism. We are in the business of politics. Whether we like it or not, there will be an ideological underpinning to our actions, attitudes and proposals on all issues. That is our approach, whether we admit it or not.

Therefore, while some people may say that they will only address certain issues because of their pragmatic value, for others the same issues will have much stronger ideological values associated with them. Indeed, a particular ideological outlook motivates those who claim that pragmatism should govern.

10.30 am

I have no trouble acknowledging that the SDLP’s views on North/South bodies have always had a particular ideological underpinning, but not in a narrow sense. We want to strengthen relationships on the island because we believe that that will begin to create conditions in which people can be brought ever closer together and, ultimately, will lead to unification. I make no bones about that; I do not believe that I have to apologise for it in any way.

I know that others will be wary that the SDLP has proposed strengthening North/South relations, perhaps because they want things to go in a different direction. Notwithstanding those two opposing, almost exclusive views — though today we cannot see these things in quite the same exclusive way that people several generations ago might have seen them — there is plenty of scope for co-operation and improvement of relations; all of which will contribute to the political stability that we need.

I want to examine a more precise issue: our experience — short though it was — of the North/South aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. There are matters that are worth highlighting as a result of that experience, under several headings. One of the headings I would choose would be “Operational Matters”, and that would comprise the process of nominating Ministers to attend; the responsibilities on Ministers for attendance; the consequences of refusal to attend; and accountability issues, such as accountability before and after meetings.

The claim was often made that there was not enough accountability. I feel that there was quite an amount of accountability. The extent to which matters were dealt with might not always have been to everyone’s satisfaction, but nonetheless every meeting was reported upon to the Assembly, and the Ministers who attended were there to be questioned on what they reported to the Assembly. The Assembly had plenty of scope to discuss North/South matters, and to make its views known on particular issues.

The manner in which the North/South Ministerial Council meetings were conducted would also come under the heading of “Operational Matters”. Having been involved in quite a number of the meetings, I can say that there was an element of pre-cooking of agendas to the point where free-flowing discussion that might have benefited the development of the subject being discussed was absent. Perhaps that was the inevitable consequence of trying to make sure that things moved ahead and that something concrete came out of the meetings, and I certainly endorse that.

Then there are the “Structural Matters” themselves, particularly the provision in the agreement for the establishment of a parliamentary forum — that has already been referred to — and a consultative forum. We need to look at how we could move ahead with the structures of both of those institutions, if I can call them that, so that they enhance the whole set of relationships and help to achieve the objectives set for the North/South dimension of the agreement.

The third heading would be “Areas for Co-operation”, and there are 12 of those. In all agreements similar to the Good Friday Agreement, there is an element of compromise, which is a product of the political discussions that take place. We all recognise that we cannot always get all that we would want. There are areas that the SDLP would have liked to have had included that are not there. We would like to be able to review the list and make sure that it is as comprehensive as possible.

I frequently hear the claim — and I think we discussed it in earlier sessions of the PFG Committee — that the structural bodies are a product of political requirements. That may be true in one sense, but if the test of a body’s usefulness is not always met, practical measures should be applied. If some bodies have shortcomings or have outlived their purpose — and we can convince each other that that is the case — then they should be replaced. If other bodies are required to meet other purposes, then create them. I am prepared to examine the existing bodies using that criterion. However, most of the bodies have been doing a worthwhile job.

There is, of course, the question of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. Because of the legislative basis upon which Irish Lights are established, that was not the most appropriate set of functions to have been included among the North/South implementation bodies. Certainly, that gap needs to be filled. There are other areas for which we might well consider the creation of additional bodies.

I caution against Mr Ford’s view that phone calls are enough: they may well be enough to get some things moving, but the benefit of creating formal structures in some areas is that Ministers become more accountable. For instance, Ministers must have clear agendas when they go to the meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council, and they have to account for how they have conducted themselves with respect to those agendas. Suggesting that we promote North/South relations based on the informality of phone calls or other types of contacts does not meet the criteria that I often hear described as being necessary — sometimes from the same people.

The SDLP does not promote North/South co-operation from an exclusive, inward-looking, Irish-only perspective. We have always been foremost in promoting a much wider perspective on relationships within these islands, Europe, in particular, and elsewhere. Therefore, I reject the claim that “North/Southery” is a product of an inward-looking perspective, and I welcome the discussions that will take place later on how we might develop the British-Irish Council, because I recognise from experience that it has had a weaker and, probably, less effective structure.

In examining those areas, we should ensure that we are aware of what has happened and what is happening. We should get copies of North/South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council reports to find out what has been happening. In that way, any claims that we make regarding the effectiveness of such bodies will be based on evidence.

Mr McGimpsey: This is an area of ideological division. It is a particularly sensitive issue for unionism because of the 1937 Irish Constitution that contained de Valera’s articles 2 and 3 and their legal claim and constitutional imperative in relation to Northern Ireland. Many unionists viewed the IRA as fulfilling the drive of that constitution to bring about a united Ireland. The IRA sought to do that through violent means because it could not persuade a majority of people in Northern Ireland to support its political objective.

For decades, articles 2 and 3 dogged discussions with the Irish Government. At one stage, the Irish Government claimed that articles 2 and 3 did not constitute a legal claim or a constitutional imperative, and were merely aspirational. During the Brooke/Mayhew talks in the early 1990s, unionists brought this important issue to the table, but at that time it was left unresolved.

That issue has now been resolved, in so far as articles 2 and 3 have been converted from a legal claim to an aspiration. The Irish Republic is entitled to that aspiration, whereby it wants a united Ireland by consent, and so forth. By definition, Northern Ireland is no longer part of the Irish Republic. The inhabitants of the island of Ireland are no longer a nation, in the political sense. Dublin and the SDLP have accepted that position, and, most pointedly of all, Sinn Féin has accepted that position. The only way to achieve a united Ireland is for the people of Northern Ireland to vote for it in a referendum.

Once changes had been made to articles 2 and 3, unionists felt that they could proceed with a North/South agenda. Dr Farren and Mr O’Dowd would probably argue that that was a modest step, but it was a major step for unionism. Unionists regarded certain principles and safeguards as being crucial, based on the Belfast Agreement. In strand one, it is stated that:

“The Assembly will exercise full legislative and executive authority … [it] will be the prime source of authority in respect of all devolved responsibilities … Executive authority to be discharged on behalf of the Assembly.”

There were several checks and balances. Dr Farren has already referred to some of them. For example, a Minister could not attend a North/South Ministerial Council meeting without prior approval from the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Executive Committee. At least one unionist had to be present at all meetings, and he or she could veto any decision. Those were essential checks and balances. Attendees at those meetings had to report back to the Executive Committee.

My party is more than happy to examine ways in which to make the implementation bodies more accountable. That could be done through the Northern Ireland Audit Office, and the UUP has proposed that the financial constraints and safeguards of those bodies should be examined. The chairmen and chief executives of the implementation bodies could also report to the relevant Assembly Committees.

Mr O’Dowd’s agenda concerns a greater level of North/South co-operation and an increase in the number of implementation bodies. There is a whole raft of stuff in the comprehensive agreement about efficiency and value for money. At present, my party does not agree with the case for the creation of additional bodies. In addition, my party would have some difficulty with the idea of a North/South parliamentary forum or a North/South consultative forum. However, we worked in the existing North/South bodies as best we could, and we worked as equals. They were there for our mutual benefit.

Mr Robinson said that some of those bodies were not doing a full day’s work.

10.45 am

Mr P Robinson: Neither are we at the moment.

Mr McGimpsey: Indeed.

We can certainly consider how to make those bodies more robust. That was our approach then, and it remains our approach now. We have no problem with Assembly scrutiny.

Dr Farren mentioned the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission and operational efficiency. Six implementation bodies were set up and six areas of co-operation were identified; we should first try to get those right before discussing the establishment of additional bodies and the practicalities of identifying further areas of co-operation.

The key, of course, is the interdependency of the institutions. It is also essential that the British-Irish Council operate as energetically as did the North/South Ministerial Council. The big problem with the British-Irish Council was primarily inefficiency in London, not in any of the regional Assemblies or in Belfast. That needs to be examined.

Mr Campbell: Mr McGimpsey has mentioned the problems with the strand two issues. How they manifest themselves — and how the outworking of any proposals are viewed by the various communities — are central and acute concerns. The demographics of the past 30 years show that the terror campaign has been the principal — though not exclusive — reason for unionists drifting away from the border areas.

That is not to say that unionists who live in border areas are any better disposed towards “North/Southery” than those who live far from the border. As the unionist MP who lives closest to the border, I am not exactly in favour of creating North/South links just for the sake of it.

As unionist communities have moved further away from the border in the past 35 years, in many respects they do not consider that North/South issues will directly affect or benefit them. That is an unfortunate reality, but a reality nonetheless, which has been brought about principally because of the IRA terror campaign. I have not heard anyone say that that is likely to be reversed in the next decade or so, so we must deal with the issue.

Some four years ago in my neck of the woods, a tourist campaign was launched to promote the new ferry crossing between Magilligan in County Londonderry, which is in my constituency, and Greencastle in County Donegal. It has been a fantastic success, with four or five times the number of vehicles using the service than was originally envisaged. However, the irony is that the reason for its popularity is the change in fuel duties — people are using it mainly because of the cheaper fuel available in the Republic.

That is the irony. There is greater North/South co-operation precisely because there are two countries on this island. If there were not, there would be nothing like that degree of support for a ferry service. I just picked that one out, and I am sure that there are other examples.

Dr Farren said that he looks forward to moving on to strand three — we do too. On almost every occasion there will be, unfortunately, an issue about “North/Southery”, which unionist eyes will view as having a political slant. It was a fault in the previous system. With Northern Ireland’s de facto position in the UK and its relationships with the Republic and with the rest of the UK, unionism will be looking for a similar degree of co-operation, business links, intensity and practicality of co-operation in all areas, whether it be transport, tourism, marine, heritage, or sporting issues.

Part of the problem was that, even though neither Mr Robinson nor I, nor any of our Ministers, was involved in North/South meetings, we were able to put down questions shortly afterwards to discover the degree of imbalance that existed — the weight of business on North/South issues was many times more than in relation to east-west issues. That clearly is untenable. It is not the case that for every North/South meeting there must be an east-west meeting, but there has to be a balance with regard to the intensity of interest and the degree of business that is undertaken in strands two and three.

That is our approach. I think Mr Robinson mentioned efficiency. We will not put forward areas of efficiency in relation to strand one without applying the same criteria, principles, logic, and reasoning to strand two. If bureaucracy can be cut back in relation to the internal workings of Northern Ireland, it can certainly be cut back in relation to the workings between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. It cuts every way. If we are going to try to curtail Government, we will not do it only in the Assembly or through the Review of Public Administration. It has to be much more widespread than that.

Mr O’Dowd: First, I want to refer to Mr McGimpsey’s comment — and I think I am quoting him directly — that Sinn Féin has accepted that the Irish nation, in a political sense, no longer exists. Apart from the obvious difficulty of partition, I do not agree with that statement, and I am surprised that Mr McGimpsey thinks that that would be a Sinn Féin belief. Sinn Féin campaigned vigorously against the removal of articles 2 and 3. We saw those as important, even though no Irish Government had ever implemented them to protect the rights of an individual nationalist or the nationalist community in the North. However, their removal was voted on, and they are no longer part of the Irish Constitution.

Secondly, in relation to unionist misgivings around North/South co-operation or “all-Irelandism”, reading the Hansard report of the economic subgroup, which meets on Tuesdays and Thursdays, shows that the unionist business community, for instance, has embraced cross-border activity and has moved it forward. Indeed, its members are leading lights in it, have seen the opportunities for increasing business on an all-Ireland basis, and have used those opportunities very well. The unionist business community has not seen it as a problem. I accept, however, that it is a difficult matter for political unionism.

I return to the issue of practicality. No one has yet identified an area of existing, or future, co-operation that would be impractical on a cross-border basis. As Mr Campbell said, if we ask for one thing, then inevitably unionism will ask for something in terms of east-west co-operation with Britain. If it is of a practical nature, Sinn Féin will not stand in the way. We will examine its practical value and say: “Yes, if that makes sense then let us do that.”

Clearly, political ideology is a factor for republicans, as it is for unionists. We see North/South co-operation as one part of going down the road to a reunified state, but again, as Dr Farren said, there is no need to apologise for that or to hide our light under a bushel. That is part of our agenda; we have never denied that.

Does it make sense to run two health services back-to-back on an island of five million people? No, it does not. Does it make sense to run two education services back-to-back on an island of five million people? No, it does not. Does it make sense that the work of civil servants in Dublin or Belfast on transport or spatial planning stops at the border? It makes no sense whatsoever.

In respect of efficiency, if Departments worked more closely together it would save the island as a whole millions of pounds a year, which could be reinvested in services. The practical benefits of co-operation and all-Ireland activity are there to be seen. They have been grasped, as I said at the beginning, by the unionist business community.

Mr P Robinson: If sharing a piece of turf makes so much more sense when everyone belongs to one country, I would suggest that it does not look too good for the future of Portugal, Luxembourg and a number of other countries. Indeed, thousands of peoples around the world would find themselves absorbed in those circumstances.

I find refreshing, at least, the honesty from both of the nationalist parties that their views on North/South issues are underpinned by the ideology that they share. To some extent, therefore, it is clear that for them — whatever the reasons of practical benefit, co-operation, mutual understanding and common interest they may put forward — the real underlying issue is political: they want to advance their political goal of a united Ireland.

The same honesty comes from unionists: that is the reason that there is resistance to this. If the reasons were practical, they could be justified and people would not be concerned. Mr O’Dowd says that the business community does not have these difficulties. The business community does not have difficulties in doing business with Russia, Iraq or Iran, but that does not mean that, politically, we should join up with any of them; nor should there be institutions of a political nature to assist in that.

The references in the comprehensive agreement, which Mr McGimpsey mentioned, are actually contradictory. One talks about the efficiency of the implementation bodies, and the other talks about their expansion. Very clearly, unionists are saying that there should be fewer and nationalists are saying that there should be more. Dr Farren seems to have a block on this matter — he said that there might not be a day’s work for some people, and that if the implementation bodies were not doing the job they should be replaced. If they are not doing the job, the answer is to remove them. Why would you need another body? That does not give you an argument for having another body — if they are not doing the job, then they are not needed. The political view is that they are there for a purpose and their number cannot be reduced. Even if there is no practical reason for them to be there, they have to be replaced with something else just for the sake of being replaced. On efficiency grounds, that could not be justified. It could be justified only on political grounds, and no unionist is going to attempt to justify it on that basis.

Like Mr Campbell I think that, from a unionist perspective, there should be a very significant dynamic on the east-west front, and it will have to be beefed up and have more emphasis put on it. I suggest that we take up Dr Farren’s proposal.

I want to see the reports and minutes of all the formal meetings, both North/South and east-west. That would give us some idea of the scope and nature of the work. I am sure that similar reports exist on the implementation bodies’ work, and it might be worth seeing just how much work they did.

11.00 am

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will take that as a formal proposal and return to it later to see whether we can reach consensus — unless you are willing to second that proposal, Dr Farren?

Dr Farren: I might do that.

Mr P Robinson: I was seconding his proposal.

[Laughter.]

Mr McNarry: Rather than interfere with cross-community enterprise, I will not second it; I will leave that to Seán.

Dr Farren: I proposed it first, actually.

Mr McNarry: I suggest that we try to reach consensus on that proposal as it would be useful to have an analysis and summary of those reports.

I am rather taken with John O’Dowd’s reference to the unionist business community. Republicans have a way of filtering unionism into phrases — they now talk about “unionist paramilitaries” as well. Surely it must be accepted that the Northern Ireland business community has long embraced doing business across the border. The major change has been the reception in the Republic; people there are now willing to do business with people in Northern Ireland.

However, unionist businessmen feel discriminated against by republican businesses; I will put that another way — by businesses domiciled in the Republic of Ireland. Businessmen here will say that that situation continues. Perhaps we all can deal with that issue; after all, it is business, and, as has probably been mentioned, where opportunities exist to do business, they will be taken. It is two-way traffic. The figures also show that Northern Ireland is doing remarkably well; the traffic is flowing better in our direction than it is in the other direction.

We should not become terribly set on the idea of a unionist business community. Is there a nationalist business community? Is there a republican business community? Such terms are divisive. There is only a Northern Ireland business community. Although people are entitled to their own individual political views, representatives of the business community do not present themselves as anything other than representatives of a business alliance or whatever. Therefore, I would not put much stock in John O’Dowd’s comment; there is not really a unionist business community in Northern Ireland. That term can misrepresent unionists who are to the fore in business and who would work with anybody.

Finally, mention has been made of the RPA. I apologise for being late this morning, and this point may have been mentioned already. Unionists are concerned that the outworkings of the RPA will open the door to North/South bodies being formed by “super councils” along the border areas. The Northern Ireland Assembly would have to keep a check on that situation, should it develop. Indeed, the entire remit of the North/South bodies should perhaps be a matter for the Assembly at some stage.

Unionists see dangers in the greening of border areas.

Mr Campbell: On a point of information, that was dealt with at Friday’s meeting of this Committee. I raised that very issue with Patricia Lewsley, who represented the SDLP. There did not appear to be any resistance to my proposition that the concern of nationalists about the RPA in relation to power sharing within the councils was matched by the equal concern of unionists concerning “North/Southery”. She accepted, I presume on behalf of the SDLP, that one concern was no bigger an obstacle than the other.

Mr McNarry: I appreciate that information, Gregory. I have not had time to read Hansard and was not here on Friday, so your point is well made.

Mr P Robinson: I have a further point of information. At another level in local government, the Department of the Environment has set up a Local Government Reform Taskforce, which comprises a political panel, a working group and nine subgroups. The governance subgroup, which has been considering how decisions would be taken, also has proposals to deal with the kind of issue that David raised. That is not to say that the Government will accept those proposals, but all parties generally agreed them.

Mr McNarry: I find that comforting as well, so I appreciate that point of information.

I am glad that the concerns surrounding “North/Southery” have been aired. It is a sensitive subject for unionists, and therefore I am sure that members will appreciate my raising it again on behalf of the Ulster Unionists. However, I also raised the issue in response to what John O’Dowd said. He talked, rather flippantly in my opinion, about whether there is a need for an education authority in Northern Ireland and one in Southern Ireland, and whether Northern Ireland needed a health board and this, that and the other. He said that surely those could be combined.

Given the uncertain future, unionists fear what will happen if the Assembly is not restored. If Northern Ireland is left to the devices of that type of opinion that holds sway and is the majority opinion in the border areas, what effect would that have on our education and health services here?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Before I go to Dr Farren, Mr Ford and O’Dowd, there seems to be consensus on the request for information. I do not know whether Mr Robinson or Dr Farren made that request.

Mr Ford: I think that it was a joint request: give them both credit.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The request was that we seek further information on the work of the implementation bodies. I do not know how much is involved in that. Either Mr McGimpsey or Mr McNarry had the idea that we request a summary that may be useful while the researchers carry out further work. Is there consensus that we request information on the work of the implementation bodies?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): OK. Having achieved our first consensus of the morning, let us move on to Dr Farren.

Mr Campbell: Perhaps we will get carried away now.

Dr Farren: First, I feel that I am in a state of déjà vu. Perhaps it is inevitable, but some of the remarks being made around the table have the flavour of the discussions that preceded the agreement in 1998. Some of the fears and apprehensions about North/South relationships are again being reflected, although perhaps in a milder tone than they were then.

Perhaps due to the DUP’s absence from the Executive and from the final stages of those negotiations, some of the subtleties and flavour of the general thrust of North/South matters is absent from its experience and therefore from its thinking on those issues. However much we engage in revisiting earlier discussions, if it helps to allay fears and apprehensions, that would be a helpful outcome.

We must address the more practical lessons that can be learned from the experience. I have attempted to outline what I believe those to be. I am not going to repeat them.

The agreement settled the constitutional issues and created a fixed framework in which we were to operate for the foreseeable future. I only attended North/South Ministerial Council meetings as a kind of supporting Minister. Mr McGimpsey was in the lead on inland waterways and the languages body; Reg Empey was the lead Minister on cross-border trade and enterprise. InterTradeIreland now has responsibility for those issues. With regard to the fears and apprehensions that have been mentioned, my experience — I am not sure whether Mr McGimpsey would back me up — was that my unionist colleagues were at ease in those meetings. Indeed, there was an appetite for more rather than less.

At one meeting we dealt with InterTradeIreland’s setting up of programmes for information exchange and the development of co-operation in marketing, which would involve graduates from both sides of the border working with businesses in the North and in the South. Those programmes continue to provide expertise to small and medium-sized businesses, in particular, that could not otherwise afford it. I cannot remember the precise figure that was initially proposed. For illustration purposes, let us say that the suggestion was that there should be 20 participants in each of the programmes. Ministers had no difficulty in saying: “That figure is far too modest to achieve anything in the short term. Why not double it?” That was achieved. There was no threat. The programmes were recognised to be of mutual benefit to businesses on both sides of the border. The new scale was considered to be far more appropriate than that originally suggested by the civil servants. Significant progress was achieved. The programmes continue to flourish.

Since I had more involvement with that imple­mentation body than any of the others, I was able to witness its growth during the short period in which the North/South Ministerial Council was in operation. The business world in both parts of the country responded enthusiastically. Trade shows were mounted North and South. Work was done to help companies on both sides of the border to tender for contracts. People say that some of that could happen spontaneously; it was not happening. Companies were not becoming involved in the procurement process on the opposite side of the border, which they are now. They are trading with each other much more. Networks are being created that are bringing companies, north and south, together for joint enterprises overseas.

Surprisingly, some of today’s remarks have suggested that those who are most critical of the bodies have not read the evidence that they have produced over the years. That is implied in some of the comments that have accompanied the requests that those reports be made available to us. I am happy to see whatever information can be made available — whatever has already been published, and more about the way that the bodies operate, the scope of their work, and indeed other areas of co-operation — brought to the Committee, so that we will be better informed to make appropriate plans for the future.

Finally, I want to comment on Mr Campbell’s proposal that every North/South plan must be accompanied by an equal and parallel east-west plan. I would have thought that if it was to the benefit of his constituents for co-operation between Altnagelvin and Letterkenny General Hospital, for example, to be enhanced, it should not have to await some form of co-operation between a hospital here and a hospital in Scotland in order to demonstrate that the North/South development was being accompanied by an equal and parallel east-west approach. That would be nonsensical.

11.15 am

I agree that there is, of course, an ideological thrust — in the sense that I have attempted to illustrate — to North/South aspirations, as there is to east-west aspirations. Is the DUP prepared to accept that the yardstick of practicality and “mutual benefit” to communities North and South — those are the words that are used in the Good Friday Agreement — can be applied equally to east-west matters? The party that prides itself on its pragmatism must learn to adhere to its own principles.

Mr Ford: I want to respond to the criticism that I received from Dr Farren earlier. The Alliance Party has always recognised the political significance for nationalists of North/South co-operation. However, that does not contradict the notion that the specific structures under which co-operation takes place should be based on the need of particular areas. In many cases, informality may be a better approach.

I said that there might be a case for further implementation bodies. The arbitrary number of six should be regarded as just that: it was arrived at during the last few hours of the negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement. We should not be bound by it in future. While the SDLP might wish to stick to every dot and comma of the Good Friday Agreement and have precisely six implementation bodies, that is not the view of my party.

Take the issue of tourism. In the colour supplements of London’s Saturday broadsheets — or what used to be broadsheets — you can see the advertising that is being done to promote this island. One week, it might be Cork and Kerry. The next week, in a similar style, it will tell us the benefits of coming to Belfast for a stag weekend. Clearly, the practical reality for most people outside the island, except those who have close family relationships here, is that we are one tourist market. That sort of work must be encouraged. The structures that exist are doing a reasonable job. However, we would need to examine detailed figures over a number of years in order to fully assess its value.

My illustration of the response to foot-and-mouth disease was to show that most cross-border co-operation is informal and does not work through specific implementation bodies. We should not restrict that co-operation by the imposition of new bodies; we should seek to encourage it in whatever form it takes. The focus should be on practical outcomes and outworking. If nationalists see the practical outworkings of cross-border co-operation to be much better than each end of the island merely doing its own thing, then that should be the bonus to nationalists, not the setting up of institutions without there being any certainty that they will be beneficial.

The unionist references to the British-Irish Council have been interesting. It parallels a discussion that we have had in the economic subgroup on the relative size of the public and private sectors in Northern Ireland. The issue is not whether there is too much North/South co-operation, but whether there is too little British-Irish co-operation and a need to build up the structures to maximise the benefits of that. Undoubtedly, the island is too small to deal with many of the matters that have been discussed.

We must work to achieve a balance between those areas. Mention has been made of the RPA and the greening across the border. If co-operation is to be developed between Altnagelvin Hospital and Letterkenny General Hospital —that is east-west rather than North/South co-operation — we should also examine the benefits of, for instance, cross-border A&E services, where there are real needs. In the past, the Alliance Party has asked for an examination of issues such as specialist training at the higher levels of psychiatry where, at either end of the island, the market is inadequate for that discipline to stand on its own. We need to build up those institutions together. East-west co-operation must also be considered in that regard.

The needs of people living in particular areas must be examined, and if that shows that people in Sligo, Monaghan and Fermanagh should avail of the same A&E services, North/South co-operation in that regard will benefit people from all those areas. However, that does not require an all-Ireland health body; it requires co-operation between the existing institutions.

Mr O’Dowd: I am not sure about David’s last point. There is a political, rather than a practical, argument against setting up an all-Ireland health body. David used the example of co-operation between Health Departments that I intended to use. When we talk about all-Ireland healthcare, we really mean planning health on an all-Ireland basis. It has taken many years for the two Departments to co-operate to set up a cross-border GP service. Many obstacles have been thrown in the way, and only now are we seeing some practical movement. If there had been ministerial co-operation on that matter, the cross-border service might have been in place many years ago, benefiting the people living in those areas.

The island of Ireland has a population of 5·5 million, and a population of that size can be serviced by one children’s cardiology consultant: the recognised ratio is one consultant to 5 million people. Therefore, there could be effective co-operation in that area.

EU legislation instructs councils on different sides of a border — for instance, in Luxembourg, Germany or Holland — to work closely together. The biggest difficulty facing councils on this island is waste management. Councils in the Six Counties should work together — as they do with the Southern Waste Management Partnership and arc21 — and on a cross-border basis to deal with waste management. I seriously doubt that any unionist ratepayer would object to their bin being lifted by a particular council worker because the rubbish may end up in a plant in Monaghan. Likewise, ratepayers in Monaghan would not object to their rubbish being treated in a unionist council plant. No one — regardless of his or her political opinion — would object to practical measures that would save the ratepayer and the council money and which would allow money to be invested elsewhere.

Mr McGimpsey: As Seán Farren says, there is an element of déjà vu about this; it is something of a Pandora’s box. I was not involved in any of the discussions on the agreement, but it was clear that nationalism required some recognition of its Irishness in the form of North/South co-operation and that unionism required Stormont and the British-Irish Council, which reflects the common polity that is the British Isles. That is where the deal fell: if unionists tried to boycott the North/South bodies, that would have an effect on Stormont; and if nationalists did the same with Stormont, that would affect the North/South Ministerial Council. In other words, the institutions were interdependent.

There is a fine balance, and we have ended up with six implementation bodies and six co-operation areas. They worked well, and we progressed on the basis of doing practical business for the mutual benefit of everyone on both sides of the border. That was what the North/South Ministerial Council was about, and members worked by unanimous agreement.

There was an element of pre-cooking the agendas, because things were sorted out before we got down to the formal business of having the North/South Ministerial Council meeting. The North/South bodies are currently being kept on a care-and-maintenance basis because Stormont is in cold storage. If Stormont is not restored, the deal is that those North/South bodies fall and the staff go back to their parent Departments.

The British-Irish Council, in purely practical terms, suffered from the lack of a secretariat. It was not due to a lack of will; the regional Assemblies were very keen on the British-Irish Council, but the slowness of the secretariat support hurt us badly. That needs to be brought up to a much more robust standard.

There is a deal there; we could start tinkering with it and pulling it apart but, for the sake of practical politics, making it work as it stands is more important, as David Ford and John O’Dowd said, than thinking about extra elements, because there will not be agreement. We have to try to make the deal work and if we cannot do that, we are not going anywhere at all.

I am intrigued by John’s constant referral to unionist businessmen. If somebody comes in to sell you a car or a van how do you know he is a unionist?

Mr McNarry: They know every unionist in the country.

Mr O’Dowd: I will come back to you on that point if you so wish.

Mr McGimpsey: Business is business. I was in business all my life; it is all about turning a profit. I presume that John meant that there are Protestants who will sell to anybody. Businessmen will cross borders; of course they will. John talks about an island of five million people; we think in terms of a Kingdom of 60 million people, and business does the same. Why stop there when you have got a European community of over 400 million people? That is the way business approaches it.

There has always been business activity between North and South, and good luck to everybody engaged in it. However, there is bigger business to be done with the mainland and, ultimately, much more business to be done in Europe and further afield. It intrigues me when John talks about business because every year, for example, the Chancellor sends us a cheque to the tune of about £11 billion and Sinn Féin are dedicated to stopping the cheque. That has always been one of the queries I have had about North/South co-operation, “Ourselves Alone”, and the idea that the Chancellor can keep his cheque. What would we do without the £11 billion? That gets us into a whole different area.

We have six implementation bodies and six co-operation bodies. They were working well for practical benefits and they threatened no one. That is where the deal stands; trying to expand them is not going to take us anywhere.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I want to bring PJ in here. We have given this —

Mr P Robinson: You do not have my name down. I put my hand up about 10 minutes ago.

Mr O’Dowd: I would also like to respond to a few points made by Michael.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am going to call it a day at that. We have given it a good airing and I do not detect much in the way of a proposal.

Mr Campbell: I thought you were going to say that you did not detect a consensus there.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Well, it was not too acrimonious, but there does not seem to be any suggestion as to how to take this forward, and far be it for me to try to suggest one. Therefore, after Mr P J Bradley, Mr P Robinson and Mr O’Dowd have spoken, I will say that we have had a discussion on this. If a proposal was forthcoming I would be very pleased to see it in order to bring this discussion to a conclusion.

Mr P J Bradley: Perhaps I will get some consensus on behalf of the farming community. We have talked about health, education and business right around the table but agriculture on an all-island basis was not really touched on. An all-island agricultural programme can easily be defended by all sections of the North/South arrangements, especially in animal health and the important issue of marketing. Unionist fears would be set aside if the farming community were given an opportunity to recover and to see their farms leading the way again as the largest industry in the North, which it had been for generations.

11.30 am

In agricultural terms, we pay a high price for our attachment to the UK. For example, since the ban on live exports was lifted, Dutch, French and Italian buyers are now in every sales yard in the Republic of Ireland where cattle can be purchased, but they are not coming North. One wonders why they do not come North, where prices are lower. The UK baggage that is attached to stock in the North means that farmers here do not attract European buyers. That is why no farmer would resent a policy that joined up the marketing of all-island products but kept the politics of North and South separate.

I am conscious that when making a political speech there is a suspicion of some hidden agenda. I have no such agenda: I speak for the benefit of farmers North and South, and particularly in the North where I live and work. They would welcome the extra £100-per-animal profit from an all-island marketing programme.

Mr Campbell: I follow the logic of your argument. However, do you accept that if positions were reversed in the future, and farmers in the Republic found that UK prices were better, they would want to rejoin the UK?

Mr P J Bradley: Not necessarily. Unlike here, farmers in the Republic can turn to their Government. Even now, they are saying to the Government that the price that they are receiving is too low. The North does not have a Minister of Agriculture.

Mr Campbell: I thought that your point was that there would not be much resistance to joint marketing because farmers in the North would see the benefit of a higher pricing structure in the Republic, whose connection with the EU is better for sales and export. If your proposals were totally reversed, would that not result in a political reverse? Would farmers in the Republic see the sense in, and possibilities offered by, rejoining the UK for precisely the same reason?

Mr P J Bradley: Try to think like a farmer, who would probably look to wherever the profits are highest. The name of the game is that farmers need profits. Again, I point to the ability of farmers in the Republic to turn to their Government for assistance: farmers here cannot do that. Mr Campbell will be aware that the UK does not even have a Minister of Agriculture — it has a Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Dr Farren: Mr Campbell has extrapolated way beyond Mr Bradley’s argument. Why is Irish linen that is manufactured in Northern Ireland marketed abroad as Irish linen? Does that cause a problem to members of the DUP?

Mr Campbell: That has been the case for over 100 years.

Dr Farren: I know, but there is some benefit in marketing.

Mr Campbell: It has been happening since before 1920.

Dr Farren: The events of 1922 did not change the way in which linen manufactured in Northern Ireland was marketed abroad.

Mr P Robinson: The Republic does not have ownership of Irish linen. It was around before the Republic removed itself from the United Kingdom. Why should the Irish Republic have ownership?

Dr Farren: Linen is generic; it is not a specific brand.

Mr P J Bradley: Members of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee always agreed on animal health issues. Animal health was never seen as a political issue and was a prime example of the co-operation that was demanded across the frontier. Importantly, neither animals nor diseases knew about the border. I consider marketing in the same way.

Mr P Robinson: I want to deal first with Dr Farren’s patronising claim to be experiencing a feeling of déjà vu. He said that he had heard all the arguments before; that perhaps because the DUP was not part of previous negotiations, it needed to be brought up to speed; and that if doing so helped to allay fears it might be worth it.

Let me tell him, I have heard no argument in this room today that I have not heard many times before — there is nothing new under the sun. Sinn Féin has advanced no new argument today that it has not already advanced publicly. Indeed, the party would not be doing its duty if it had not publicly put forward the arguments that it is privately putting forward today. Therefore, there is nothing new, no new nuance. The DUP has heard it all before.

As for allaying unionist fears, he has given an honest interpretation of his party’s views. His remark that his party’s attitude to “North/Southery” is effectively underpinned by ideology leading to unification will be in Hansard. Those are his words. How will that allay the fears of unionists? It alerts unionists to the real purpose and intent of “North/Southery”. Mr McGimpsey is right; there is no scope for extending the nationalist community’s ideology, even if it is under the pretence that there is a pragmatic reason for doing so.

Dr Farren attempted to build straw men with his attack on Mr Campbell. Mr Campbell did not advance the proposal of point-for-point balance on North/South and east-west issues — indeed, he specifically said that it was not realistic to expect that. It is fairly clear that the DUP is warning that the effort and enthusiasm of unionism towards practical North/South co-operation will be commensurate with the effort and enthusiasm of nationalists towards east-west co-operation. Identity issues should be considered on that basis. Just as Dr Farren indicates his political intent that “North/Southery” might be a move towards the goal of unification, I hope that at some stage the people in the Republic will have the good sense to return to the fold as part of the United Kingdom. It would make a lot of sense. After all, based on Sinn Féin’s argument, it must make sense for a small group of islands to be part of one political unit.

Mr O’Dowd: By the same logic, one could argue that the Republic should take over the whole group of islands and become one massive united Ireland. It does not really make sense in practical terms. However, I take the comment in the humour in which it was made.

Mr McGimpsey and Mr McNarry have come back at me about the term “unionist business community”. One would think that I was the first person to come up with the term. I do not consider it to be an insulting term, and I hope that my use of it has not been taken in that way. Mr McGimpsey and Mr McNarry cannot seriously be telling me that they have never heard it before.

The Ulster Unionist Party was built by unionist businessmen — and I deliberately use the word “men” — so it is not the first time that the phrase has been used. There is a unionist business sector, just as there is a nationalist business sector, but they do not compete against each other. Wherever there is a political philosophy, whether it is that of the British Labour Party, the Conservative Party, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or whatever, there is always a business sector floating about behind it. That is nothing new, and it is certainly not something to get flabbergasted about.

It is not true to say, as Mr McGimpsey did earlier, that if the DUP decides to take the Assembly down before or after 24 November, the North/South bodies will go into cold storage. They will not. The Good Friday Agreement recognises that it is best for the bodies to be interdependent. However, Sinn Féin will argue strongly with the two Governments that even if one political party chooses to veto the Assembly, the rest of the agreement should still move on — and that will include all aspects of “North/Southery”. No civil servants will be traveling back to their former Departments. In fact, more civil servants will be moving into that field of work. If the DUP chooses to bring down the Assembly, the rest of the agreement will not go with it.

As for Mr Ford’s comments about the number of North/South implementation bodies, there are mandates for at least six bodies, as the Good Friday Agreement allows for the setting up of at least six bodies to work on areas of co-operation. Therefore, there is room for expansion.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have had a full and frank discussion on the issue. Mr Robinson said there was nothing new under the sun, and I suspect that we could agree on that. Is there any way of moving this forward, or will we just simply leave it? I am thinking of the dilemma that the report-writers will face. This is a very important issue.

Mr McGimpsey: Did we not previously agree that the chairpersons and chief executive officers of the North/South bodies would be subject to Assembly scrutiny Committees?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We did. However, today we are discussing the number of bodies and their roles, and we are clearly not going to reach agreement on that.

Are members content that, notwithstanding the lack of agreement, we should request the extra material? We have no idea of the quantity involved; it may be colossal.

Mr P Robinson: If it turns out to be a colossal amount, a summary would be sufficient.

The Committee Clerk: We are looking at the websites to see what is available. There are joint communiqués from every meeting, which are just like the minutes of this Committee. However, we can find nothing that tells us how they worked or how matters were discussed. We are trying to work out the best way to present the information to members.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There must have been minutes of every meeting.

Dr Farren: Yes, there were.

The Committee Clerk: There were annual reports as well.

Mr Campbell: Some minutes may have been shorter than others.

Dr Farren: The implementation bodies and the North/South Ministerial Council published annual reports, and they are still available. We would not need each year’s report; the most recent one would give us a flavour of what is happening now, if that is what members feel is necessary.

In addition to the areas of co-operation, I spoke about institutional matters under three headings; operational matters, structural matters and the areas of co-operation. I said that there were issues arising out of our experience that would need to be addressed. Are they not part of our agenda?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We can discuss those issues. That is not a problem. The commitment has been given that if anybody raises related issues they will be dealt with.

Mr P Robinson: Presumably Dr Farren will want to talk about the efficiency of reducing the number of implementation bodies as well?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am absolutely certain that the DUP group does.

Dr Farren: Whatever the outcome is, I presume that the DUP will prejudge it.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Has the issue been aired adequately, or do members want to speak on it? I got the impression during the various contributions that that point was well made.

Mr P Robinson: The whole issue has been sufficiently aired.

Mr Campbell: It would be difficult to say that this issue has not had sufficient airing this morning.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That would be my view, but I have to take the view of the members. I propose that we move on to discuss the North/South Ministerial Council, unless anyone has any objections.

Mr P Robinson: My view is the same as Mr McGimpsey’s. If Sinn Féin brings down the Assembly by not ending its paramilitary and criminal activity, then clearly the implementation bodies and “North/Southery” will come to a standstill. It would be absurd to suggest that one part of the agreement can move ahead without the other. An agreement is an agreement among all of the signatory parties, and if the Ulster Unionist Party, a signatory party, has not signed up to the element that Sinn Féin is suggesting, then it is not an agreement.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any proposals?

Dr Farren: I want to make a final comment on the matter. The responsibility for taking matters forward would fall to the two Governments. They have made it clear that they are prepared to accept that responsibility, and that they will deal with North/South arrangements as well as other matters. It is not for us to dictate to them. We may want to air our views on what they should or should not do, but they have made it clear that North/South matters will move ahead. There will be a momentum maintained, and developments are not going to be artificially constrained by our views on these matters.

Mr Campbell: Of course, should things happen as Dr Farren suggests, opposition from the unionist community is guaranteed.

Dr Farren: Well, it is up to the Government. It depends on what happens, of course, and on whether or not you make the judgment that those things are not in your best interest. I am just saying that the responsibility will fall to the two Governments; it is not for us to dictate. No doubt we will have our views on what they should and should not do.

11.45 am

Mr P Robinson: But you are wrong, Seán — you cannot argue that. Responsibility falls to the Government of the United Kingdom as to what they do in Northern Ireland. They can operate themselves by the decisions that they take, but they cannot decide to take an agreement that does not exist, somehow skew it, and then have a meeting that they did not originally intend to have. They can take a new decision that there should be some arrangement, but they cannot unilaterally take a decision that was multilaterally agreed and then tell us what is going to happen.

Dr Farren: I will not speculate as to how the two Governments will operate. However, they have a responsibility, and they have made it clear that they will exercise that responsibility and maintain a momentum in North/South relationships, because they believe that that is necessary for the greater good.

Mr P Robinson: Except that that is absurd.

Dr Farren: Pardon me?

Mr P Robinson: East and west Governments cannot produce momentum on a North/South basis.

Dr Farren: That is not part of today’s argument.

Mr O’Dowd: None of this should come as a surprise to the DUP. The comments of the two Governments were made public months ago. With regard to the opposition from unionism, any political body has the right to oppose, so long as it is done in a peaceful and democratic manner and not that of the UVF. [Laughter.]

Mr McGimpsey: Chairman, the deal is clear. Strands one, two and three are interdependent and interlocking, and without one the other two fall. That is made clear in strand two, paragraph 13 of the Belfast Agreement.

There is no point in asking “what if?” The British Government have said a number of things over recent years — some of them have been kosher and some have not. It may be that they are giving certain guarantees in some directions that they are not giving in others; I do not know what is going on. I hear Mr Hain talking, but he is merely making statements.

Mr O’Dowd: Can I assure you that —

Mr McGimpsey: The agreement is clear. It cannot be argued that if Sinn Féin busts the Assembly it will still get its North/South bodies, because that “ain’t gonna happen”. It is not the deal. I believe that neither the British nor Irish Governments are looking to push that through.

Mr O’Dowd: Sinn Féin has no attention of busting the Assembly. Our plan A is the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, including the Assembly. With regard to assurances from the British Government, we do not accept those unless they are written down and implemented.

Mr P Robinson: May I reassure everyone that I do not envisage that the unionist community’s opposition and reaction will be anything other than the peaceful kind that Sinn Féin has advised us we should take. The unionist community would find it difficult to take a lecture from Sinn Féin about acting peacefully and within the law.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McNarry will speak next and, in the absence of any proposals, I will then move to the next item on the agenda.

Mr McNarry: Comments about the interlocking aspects of the strands have been well made, and they should be considered. Sinn Féin has said that its intentions are clear, but it would be great to hear its representatives say that they intend to help the rest of us to put a devolved democracy back in place. That is absent from their argument.

Mr O’Dowd: You have not been listening.

Mr McNarry: I have listened to what you have said in this past five minutes.

Mr O’Dowd: Sinn Féin’s plan A is to fully implement the Good Friday Agreement, including the Assembly. What is not clear about that?

Mr McNarry: You did not participate when the rest of us were attempting to work through plan A.

Mr O’Dowd: That is your opinion.

Mr McNarry: Everybody’s opinion is worth something here.

Mr O’Dowd: Correct.

Mr McNarry: Unfortunately, you dismiss everyone else’s opinion except your own: that is how you operate.

I cannot go along with the idea that if we cannot reach agreement, the responsibility for the North/South bodies will be handed over. It has been made clear that that will not happen. I hope that progress will be made by this Committee working through the remit of making preparations for Government.

On hearing some of Sinn Féin’s rhetoric in discussions such as this, it is clear that we must also prepare ourselves for not being in Government. That possibility must be aired at this table, because leadership will be required and may need to be shown in the future.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is the end of the discussion on the North/South implementation bodies. Some of the discussion will be relevant to our next subject, which is the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC), and some of the principles that have been articulated will also apply.

The usual format will apply: each party will make a short contribution. I am extremely grateful to those who have been so succinct throughout the last two months, and I hope that that trend will continue.

Mr Ford: Does that include me?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Alliance Party has always been very brief. Contributions will be made in alphabetical order, so Mr Ford will lead off.

Mr Ford: In my opening remarks this morning, I made some reference to the Alliance Party’s view on the NSMC. Therefore, I will confine myself now to making a suggestion for consideration, and perhaps a formal proposal.

I am interested in hearing responses to the suggestion that the Alliance Party made in the Chamber on establishing the North/South parliamentary tier, although there may not be unanimity on that today.

On a more serious point, the Alliance Party’s formal proposal is that the annual report of the NSMC should not be in the form of a document. A formal report should be presented in the Assembly and in the Oireachtas by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. There is considerable merit in opening up the general operation of the NSMC, rather than individual aspects of it. I want to put that forward as a proposal and hear responses from other parties.

Mr Campbell: As you rightly indicated, Mr Chairman, there is quite an overlap between our previous discussion and this one.

Mr P Robinson: That will not stop us from saying it again.

Mr Campbell: I will try to phrase my comments in a slightly different way.

In all seriousness, the major issue for the DUP is the difficulty relating to the practicalities of the 1998 system, of which I will give an example. Mr McGimpsey went to some length to outline how the NSMC operated in a practical sense. However, those of us who were on the outside can testify that, whatever the workings of the NSMC itself, when proposals came to the Assembly for discussion, it appeared that it was simply a case of a Minister coming back with NSMC-agreed proposals. MLAs may have been able to discuss them, but that was all. It was almost like an Order in Council: a proposal could be discussed but could not be changed, vetoed, added to or diminished. The DUP strongly believes that that should change.

The business of nominations was fraught with difficulty in the past. Mr Robinson, Nigel Dodds, Maurice Morrow — now Lord Morrow — and I were all caught in the same position. On account of our views on the Executive and the workings of the NSMC, whose meetings we did not want to attend, we were prevented from attending the British-Irish Council (BIC). However, we got round that by engaging in informal discussions. I hope that that answers Dr Farren’s point — he said that the SDLP did not deem a phone call between a Northern Ireland Minister and a Republic of Ireland Minister to be sufficient. I found that a phone call and an informal meeting were sufficient, particularly given that I had been blocked from attending BIC meetings.

It is more a case of the practicalities of working these issues out. It almost reinforces our concern that the entire issue of North/South co-operation — whether it be the implementation bodies or the NSMC — causes the unionist community in particular to view it with some suspicion because of its political undertones. However, if it is built on a practical relationship from which benefits flow, then both communities can see it in a relaxed and positive way, and will not view it as a threat or as political leverage to take things off in one direction only. That is our concern.

I am not sure that we can arrive at a more acceptable implementation of NSMC accountability, how it carries out its work and how it reports back to the Assembly. However, if we could, it would be a positive thing, not just for unionism but for nationalists as well.

Mr Ford: Mr Campbell referred to informal meetings with Southern Ministers. My definition of an informal meeting is standing around with a coffee cup in your hand. Do I take it that what he actually means is a formal meeting, but outside the scope of the NSMC?

Mr Campbell: Yes.

Mr Ford: So, not actually an informal chat but a formally structured meeting?

Mr Campbell: It can mean that. For example, in the context that Dr Farren mentioned — two hospitals in Dundalk and Newry, or Altnagelvin and Letterkenny, or Larne and Stranraer on an east-west basis — if a health matter required immediate attention and had to be resolved within 24 hours, and so could not await the formal requisition of a NSMC meeting, I would regard that as an informal meeting.

Mr Ford: Did Mr Campbell have informal meetings as a Minister on that basis?

Mr Campbell: Yes, on the basis that I have just described.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Before we get to Sinn Féin’s presentation, Mr Ford, you made a suggestion about a North/South parliamentary tier. Was that a proposal, or did you just want to raise it as an idea?

Mr Ford: I threw it out as idea rather than as a formal proposal at this point. I thought that the idea of greater openness and accountability might be more likely to achieve consensus.

Mr O’Dowd: It is difficult to review the past workings of the NSMC, because it operated for only a limited time. It may be opportunistic of some people to say that there was not enough accountability to the Assembly. The fact of the matter is that none of those arrangements were bedded in long enough to see how they worked.

Our general view is that during its limited lifespan, the NSMC was accountable to the two bodies that it reported back to. Obviously, one of the difficulties that arose, and Mr Campbell has given his perspective on it, was the right of Ministers to attend. For a time, David Trimble used a veto against Sinn Féin Ministers’ attendance. That example has shown us that Ministers should have an automatic right to attend NSMC meetings. That would clearly require new legislation.

It is also important that Ministers fulfil their duties within the NSMC and the BIC. Sinn Féin will be looking at several factors with a view to making changes to that. With regard to the mechanisms of reporting back and forth, we have not had the practice for long enough to see where the weaknesses or opportunities are.

Dr Farren: The Good Friday Agreement, in paragraph 6 of the section dealing with strand two, states:

“Each side to remain accountable to the Assembly and Oireachtas respectively, whose approval, through the arrangements in place on either side, would be required for decisions beyond the defined authority of those attending.”

12.00 noon

The SDLP has no difficulty with trying to maximize, and make as comprehensive as is reasonably possible, the various forms of accountability. If we can be precise about those, and agree on how to improve accountability, I do not have any problem. Some 60 meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council were held in various formats, mainly in the formats related to the workings of the implementation bodies. That is a sizeable number of meetings to have taken place during the short time that the Council operated. There was a report on every meeting, apart from those that took place immediately preceding the suspension of the Assembly. No plenaries were held after suspension, so it was impossible to report on those final meetings.

The Assembly was not so overburdened with business that there was no chance to propose motions for Ministers to be made more accountable on North/South matters. The same applies to east-west issues. The Assembly was experienced enough to do that. I hope — although I am not sure that the record will show this — that the informal meetings that Gregory claims he took part in were as fully reported to the Assembly as all the formal meetings that Ministers attended.

Most decisions are not instantaneous. During a crisis such as the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak, decisions had to be taken when the Assembly was unable to meet to consider them due to time constraints and priority pressures. Matters to do with hospitals, schools, universities and the infrastructure have been given much airing lately. Decisions must be made on policies to deal with those medium- to long-term issues. Forms of co-operation must be developed, considered and accepted. On such matters, the North/South Ministerial Council can take a longer-term perspective than some suggestions would indicate. The SDLP is open to improving accountability as much as possible.

Mr McGimpsey: The North/South Ministerial Council is conditional on there being an Assembly. The agreement states:

“It is understood that the North/South Ministerial Council and the Northern Ireland Assembly are mutually inter-dependent, and that one cannot successfully function without the other.”

As Paul Murphy told the House of Commons on 8 March 1999:

“The North/South Ministerial Council, to which the bodies are accountable, would disappear if there were no Assembly. Similarly, the bodies envisaged in the agreement would disappear.”

That is the current situation. The Assembly must function. From May 2000 to October 2002, my experience of the North/South Ministerial Council is that it undertook its work well and threatened no one.

Unanimity was required; if one Minister disagreed, a proposal fell. That veto gave unionists comfort, because major ideological divisions in the NSMC made it a sensitive area for them. It also got mixed up with other political issues; for example, the one that John O’Dowd referred to as the automatic right to attend.

The Ulster Unionists exercised a veto over Sinn Féin because, when the Executive first started up, and although it was against the odds, Sinn Féin failed to provide what was expected and the Executive collapsed. That was in February 2000. Therefore, next time round, there was an effort to ensure that those responsible for the collapse would be punished, not everybody else. That was the thinking behind David Trimble’s refusal, as First Minister, to approve the attendance of Sinn Féin Ministers at North/South Ministerial Council meetings, and that gave unionists a degree of comfort. It worked, but it took some time.

We assume that that no longer applies, but the Ulster Unionist Party would still regard the attendance of Ministers as being determined by a joint signature of First Minister and Deputy First Minister. However, the automatic right to attend will give us some problems.

With regard to the practical steps for the account­ability of North/South bodies, Gregory Campbell talked about informal meetings. Before the agreement was set up, something in the region of 105 meetings of North/South bodies or committees — call them what you want — were held between the Northern Ireland Government under direct rule and the Dublin Government. We ended up with a formalised structure under the NSMC with six implementation bodies and six consultative areas. Concerns were expressed that they were not fully accountable to the Assembly. Therefore, there is scope for better reporting and accountability in finance; that is a key issue. The Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive remain fully in charge of the powers on this side of the border, and the Ulster Unionist Party is content to look at any practical measures or steps that will increase scrutiny or accountability.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): David, was your point properly covered by the intervention?

Mr Ford: Yes.

Mr P Robinson: The SDLP and the DUP differ on the definition of accountability, and that became obvious at several private meetings. The SDLP’s definition of accountability was the entitlement of Assembly Members to ask Ministers questions, and to ask them for an account of what they had done. The DUP considered that accountability was calling a Minister to account, with the right to decide whether what they had done was proper. That distinction caused difficulty for a long time in our understanding each other’s position.

Accountability to the Assembly means that Ministers must act within the scope of the Assembly’s view of the issue. Section 52(3) of the 1998 Act states that there is a legal requirement for Ministers attending North/South meetings to act in accordance with any decision taken — past tense — but there is no legal requirement on them to come into line with decisions that the Assembly might take after the event.

So many of the North/South arrangements came down to custom and practice. I will put this as delicately as I can: there is no guarantee that the custom and practices that existed during the previous Executive would be adopted by a future Executive with a different composition. That is why it is essential to have clear statutory rules and why the comprehensive agreement proposes the introduction of a statutory ministerial code, which would increase accountability requirements. That safeguards everybody; previous custom and practice would effectively be replaced by a statutory ministerial code and the statutory requirements contained therein. That is the way forward; it would give everybody the comfort of knowing that their position is safeguarded.

Dr Farren: Peter, is this discussion not similar to last week’s discussion on ministerial accountability with respect to departmental portfolios? We discussed whether Ministers are working within the defined authority given to them and the decisions that they take within that defined authority. Such accountability pertains as much to their behaviour in the NSMC as it does to their behaviour in the Executive. I have no difficulty with that. Paragraph 6 of strand two of the agreement makes that very clear:

“Each side to remain accountable to the Assembly…whose approval, through the arrangements in place on either side, would be required for decisions beyond the defined authority of those attending.”

Therefore, I assume that the defined authority has already been defined and that if a Minister acts outside that defined authority the Assembly would have some authority to sanction them. However, when I think about accountability, I think about Ministers who are acting within their defined authority, not outside it.

Mr P Robinson: Seán is quoting the agreement, but it has no legal or statutory authority. He may be able to score political points if a Minister breaches it, but that ministerial decision cannot be stopped or nullified. Under existing law, there is no sanction for breaching it. Therefore, it is the law that we seek to change.

Dr Farren: I apologise if I am jumping in in front of another member, but I will be brief.

I certainly agree with Peter’s remarks, and I have no difficulty with considering the necessary legislative provisions to remedy that here. However, I wish to attach a rider, which I have mentioned several times before. Since another Government are involved in North/South matters, we cannot exclusively define the legislative requirements here. Peter, you may well respond that this is Northern Irish legislation, but we must consider the wider setting before we can make any definitive decisions.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Unusually, no one has indicated that they wish to speak on this issue.

Mr Campbell: I would bank that, if I were you, Chairman.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Ford made a proposal that the NSMC annual report should be presented in person by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the Assembly and by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste in the Oireachtas.

Mr Ford: Chair, that is not strictly correct. I suggested a joint presentation in both Parliaments. Therefore, the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, alongside the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, would answer questions in the Assembly.

Mr McNarry: No one picked that up.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that a serious proposal, David?

Mr Ford: It absolutely is a serious proposal. It has been in the Alliance party’s documentation for two years.

Mr Campbell: He was going well up until that point. [Laughter.]

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I did not pick that up when you first raised that.

Mr Ford: I apologise. I had no doubt that you had been reading up on the Alliance Party’s paperwork from 7 January 2004 and would have realised what the proposal meant.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): David, I suspect that there may have been a greater reaction to the initial proposal had anybody picked up on the import of what you are saying. Take us through the mechanics of your proposal: the Taoiseach would come to this Assembly to —

Mr Ford: As the report is from the North/South Ministerial Council, the leaders of the Governments of both parts of the island would attend both Parliaments to present, and be questioned on, the report.

Mr P Robinson: Why would the leaders of the Irish Government come to the Assembly? They are not accountable to the Assembly, and the Assembly cannot sanction them. Is David proposing an information session?

Mr Ford: I thought that you wanted to increase accountability.

12.15 pm

Mr P Robinson: There is no accountability: they are not accountable to the Assembly.

Mr McNarry: Chairman, I do not think that there is consensus.

Mr P Robinson: How does presenting a report make them accountable —unless you share the SDLP’s view that accountability means being asked to give an account as opposed to being called to account?

Mr Ford: The accountability measures differ between those Ministers who are accountable, in your terms, to the Assembly and those who are, by virtue of the joint operation of the North/South Ministerial Council, accountable in SDLP terms. I thought that even the DUP would perceive the SDLP’s version of the accountability of the Southern wing of the North/South Ministerial Council to be of benefit.

Mr McNarry: If it is the same report, that does not matter.

Mr P Robinson: The proposal may breach so many other principles that its benefit would be somewhat diluted.

Mr McNarry: The Alliance Party will be inviting P O’Neill next to report to the Assembly.

Mr Campbell: Much of what we are considering is an attempt to build on international best practice. I know of no other two adjoining countries where a Minister, Tánaiste, or whatever the equivalent would be in Luxembourg or Portugal or wherever else, reports to the adjacent country’s Parliament.

Dr Farren: Let us be pioneers.

Mr Campbell: The proposal is that the leaders of both Governments attend the Parliament in each jurisdiction to present the report. That has no international precedent.

Mr Ford: I am quite sure that there is little in the way of international precedents for much that is contained in the Good Friday Agreement.

Mr Campbell: Are we reaching consensus now?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We were on a roll, but —

Mr Ford: I am interested in any amendments that other parties may have to my proposal.

Mr P Robinson: The position that the DUP previously outlined was that those who are responsible to the Assembly should be accountable to the Assembly. I do not mind whether that is done through a full Assembly meeting or through the Committee of the Centre, where the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are collectively called to account, but they must be accountable for their actions.

Mr McGimpsey: May I also suggest, in relation to the previous section, that the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) examines the workings of the North/South bodies in order to reassure us. They are, after all, spending money that comes straight out of the Northern Ireland block grant.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): David, do you want me to put your proposal to the Committee and then move to a discussion of those suggestions?

Mr Ford: I sensed that there was not full consensus on my original proposal. That was why I sought any amendments that might attract more support.

Mr McNarry: What you have said is that you have put another bummer in front of us. You have then said that you think that you will get more support for this proposal. I assure you that I did not hear the original proposal that way.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I must be honest, David, neither I, nor any staff, heard it that way the first time round. However, you have clarified the proposal. I assume that there is no consensus.

Mr Campbell: I think that you can take the silence to mean that there is no consensus.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We move on to the DUP proposal, which is that the relevant Minister brings the report to the Committee of the Centre or to the Assembly. Is that acceptable?

Dr Farren: Can you read that again?

Mr P Robinson: The DUP’s proposal is that in the same way that chief executives and chairs of implementation bodies would report to Committees, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should report either to the Assembly or to the Committee of the Centre. We can consider which is the better mechanism annually. It would be a poor Committee of the Centre that did not call for —

Dr Farren: I am in favour of as much discussion of North/South issues in the Assembly as possible.

Mr P Robinson: I am in favour of as much exposure of what goes on as possible too.

Mr Ford: That is consensus.

Mr O’Dowd: There was not sufficient opportunity for the procedures to bed in to see what worked. Therefore, to make changes at this stage is, in Sinn Féin’s view, unnecessary.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): My understanding is simply that the report would be brought to —

Mr O’Dowd: I understand perfectly. I do not need to have it explained again.

Mr Campbell: Seán, you said that there were over 60 meetings. Is that right?

Dr Farren: There were 60 meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council.

Mr P Robinson: There have not been 60 formal meetings of the British-Irish Council, which is what you indicated earlier.

Dr Farren: No, I was talking about the North/South Ministerial Council. I did not refer to the British-Irish Council.

Mr P Robinson: How many British-Irish Council meetings have there been?

Mr Campbell: Considerably fewer.

Dr Farren: I cannot recall. I am prepared to acknowledge that there were far fewer. I never attended a British-Irish Council meeting. Like Gregory, I was not nominated to attend those meetings.

Mr McGimpsey: There is a difference between meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council involving all Ministers and meetings of the North/South implementation bodies. The latter falls under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council. That accounts for the total figure of 60 meetings.

Mr McNarry: How many meetings, Chairman, would the —

Mr McGimpsey: Two Ministers went to meetings of the implementation bodies that were set up.

Mr McNarry: How many practical meetings would it take to bed in, in Sinn Féin’s view?

Mr O’Dowd: How long is a piece of string?

Mr McNarry: But you cannot operate —

Mr O’Dowd: You are asking me an impossible question.

Mr McNarry: Your opinion is that they have not had enough meetings to bed in. So you must have an idea of many meetings they may require before they can bed in.

Mr O’Dowd: But they have not. Does anybody believe that any of the institutions set up under the Good Friday Agreement have had a chance to bed in? They have not. If parties can present practical alternatives or proposals, Sinn Féin will examine them; however, that is difficult in the current uncertain climate. Seán has suggested that there were 60 meetings. I do not believe that. I do not know whether he is saying that there were 60 meetings of actual Ministers across the table from each other. Is he saying that?

Dr Farren: Yes, there were. I have that information from the General Secretary of the North/South Ministerial Council.

Mr P Robinson: Given the time it took for the implementation bodies to bed in, there could not possibly be an argument to extend the number of implementation bodies.

Mr McNarry: That goes right down the line. Mr O’Dowd is saying that he would not agree to an annual report of the meetings that have taken place.

Mr O’Dowd: I am not saying that I disagree with it. I am not saying that it is a bad proposal. The institutions have not had the chance to bed in. If a proposal comes forward in a working environment, it would be worth looking at. But to do that in the absence of a working environment is impractical.

Dr Farren: The North/South Ministerial Council publishes an annual report. For the life of me I cannot see why we should object to an annual report being tabled by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and discussed in the Assembly. It is a sensible proposal, even if we were only starting from scratch.

Mr McNarry: Indeed.

Mr O’Dowd: We are making a mountain out of a molehill. I have already said that if it was presented in a working environment it would be worth looking at.

Mr McNarry: But you are saying the answer is slumberland as well.

Mr O’Dowd: Saying what?

Mr Campbell: Let us be clear about this mountain out of a molehill. Four out of the five parties have agreed its size, whether or not it is a mountain or a molehill. We need the fifth party to agree.

Mr O’Dowd: I have given my answer.

Mr Campbell: If that is the case then there is consensus and if not, there is not.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is clear that we do not have consensus. Mr O’Dowd has said that he is not happy with that proposal.

That moves us on to Mr McNarry’s proposal about the Northern Ireland Audit Office.

Mr McGimpsey: It is that the Northern Ireland Audit Office examine the workings of the North/South bodies.

Mr P Robinson: Are they prohibited at the present time from doing so?

Mr McGimpsey: I only know by my own experience. I believe that they are just not doing it and should be, because public money is being spent. I know from my own experience that when we had concerns or wanted to do a check we had to call the Audit Office.

Mr P Robinson: I am quite content with that. It is a sensible thing. Could we ask officials to find out whether the Audit Office believes that it has any role at present?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do members want to defer a decision on that matter?

Mr McNarry: Subject to an answer from the Audit Office.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can I put that proposal regarding the Northern Ireland Audit Office. Have we consensus?

Mr O’Dowd: No.

Dr Farren: Let us find out what the current practice is. I cannot imagine that public money is being spent without some form of accountability.

Mr P Robinson: It would be absurd not to have it.

Dr Farren: That is why I believe that there must be form of accountability. Let us find out what exists and then perhaps come back to the proposal.

Mr P Robinson: To suggest that that was not a sensible proposal would be saying that it is right to watch how money is spent in Northern Ireland, but we can do whatever we want and throw millions away without any scrutiny.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are we happy to accept Séan’s suggestion to defer a decision until we find out where we stand?

Dr Farren: It may be that there is accountability that meets our needs. I do not wish to be doctrinaire about this.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is lunchtime. I suggest that we adjourn. Mr Molloy will take the Chair at 2.00 pm.

Mr P Robinson: Do you want us to adjourn until 2.00 pm?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): No. We will be back in 15 minutes to resume business. Mr Molloy will take over at 2.00 pm.

The Committee was suspended at 12.25 pm.

On resuming —

12.52 pm

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We now have a quorum, and all parties are represented. Before lunch, we failed to reach consensus on one proposal. The second proposal concerned the role of the Northern Ireland Audit Office. Secretariat staff are liaising on that issue, and we may have a decision before the end of the day. Therefore, we will park the issue until we hear something further.

Are members content that North/South Ministerial Council issues have been adequately discussed? Are there any burning issues that we have failed to cover?

Dr Farren: I have misunderstood the procedures that we are following. When we were discussing what lessons could be learned from experiences of the North/South Ministerial Council, I mentioned only accountability and the need for Ministers to report back in detail.

The SDLP urges that an obligation for Ministers to attend meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council and the Executive be included in the Pledge of Office. Other parties hold similar views, but I want to ensure that the SDLP view is on the record.

The operation of the North/South Ministerial Council was mentioned earlier, and I said that there was room for more free-flowing exchanges in the meetings. That did happen from time to time, but many of the meetings were formal because of the nature of the business that was being conducted. There has to be a certain level of formality, as proposals and propositions are brought to the meetings by those who are charged with advising the Ministers through the secretariat. The formality or informality of the meetings is a minor matter in the scale of issues that are being discussed. However, we need to examine how the business is allowed to be structured and to flow.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The proposal is that Ministers would be required to attend North/South Ministerial Council meetings.

Dr Farren: Yes.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will take that to a vote. Do any members wish to comment further on the North/South Ministerial Council?

Mr Campbell: Is Dr Farren’s proposal based on the premise that all the Ministers who are appointed to the Executive and who are carrying out their functions — including participation in the North/South Ministerial Council — agree to do so at the outset?

Dr Farren: Is Mr Campbell talking now about how we choose Ministers? That is agreed first. I am saying that it would not just be in respect of the North/South Ministerial Council. The Ministers’ duties should be made explicit in the Pledge of Office, not covered by “Ministers must attend all meetings”. It should state that Ministers are expected to attend meetings of the Executive, the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. Is that sufficient?

Mr Campbell: Therefore, what Dr Farren is proposing now is not what happened in the 1998 era.

Dr Farren: That is correct.

Mr Campbell: I presume that it takes account of what happened in the 1998 era.

Dr Farren: Yes. It is based on the experience of some Ministers. Let me put it another way; it is necessary —

Mr Campbell: Dr Farren is not normally so shy and retiring.

Dr Farren: It is necessary that there be an explicit duty on Ministers to attend all meetings of the Executive, the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. There were two Ministers at any one time from Mr Campbell’s party, and they did not attend any Executive meetings; Mr Campbell was complaining earlier that he did not get the opportunity to attend the British-Irish Council. If you are in for one, you are in for them all, and that must be made explicit. The SDLP is urging that the Pledge of Office contain a commitment for Ministers to attend all the meetings that they are required to attend.

Mr Campbell: I was not complaining about not getting the opportunity to attend the British-Irish Council; I was stating a fact and explaining how I got round it. I was not complaining that I was excluded; I was saying that an informal meeting took place after I had been excluded. I was not making a complaint that I had been excluded; it was simply a statement of fact.

Is it the underlying premise of Dr Farren’s proposal that there is all-party agreement on how the Executive is appointed and its functions — including ministerial involvement in the North/South Ministerial Council — and that the proposal flows from that, or is it irrespective of whether there is agreement?

Dr Farren: That would not apply if there were no agreement. Perhaps I am being thick, but I cannot follow that logic. If we have agreed on how the Ministers are appointed, and so on, it is when they are appointed that their Pledge of Office contains a commitment to attend those meetings. I am not referring to the manner of their appointment.

1.00 pm

Mr Campbell: Under the former system there was no agreement. If Dr Farren’s proposal were transposed back in time to 1998, it might have been the case that Ministers who chose not to attend the Executive would have had no choice but to attend the North/South Ministerial Council. Is that correct?

Dr Farren: I can see what Mr Campbell is getting at now. My proposal would require Ministers to attend all meetings; there would be no opt-out clause. Is that correct?

Mr Campbell: Yes.

Dr Farren: Is there any objection to that?

Mr Campbell: If Ministers disagreed with the underlying rationale for the Executive being established and the appointment of Ministers to carry out certain functions, they would not have a choice.

Dr Farren: Rather than talk about what has happened since 1998, we should learn from experience. I assume that the next Executive will be established according to what we have agreed to be the basis of its formation and whether we have agreed to change the basis of its formation.

Mr P Robinson: That is why Dr Farren’s proposal is not necessary. The only justification for it is what has happened in the past. Those circumstances would not happen in the future — at least, not in the foreseeable future. Twenty years down the road, perhaps, a party might not accept it.

Dr Farren: What is wrong with Ministers being required to commit themselves to attend —

Mr P Robinson: That is like saying: “What would be wrong with a Member of Parliament who has been elected being required to attend Westminster?” Is that what Dr Farren means?

Dr Farren: Not quite. I refer to Ministers.

Mr P Robinson: What about the responsibility of elected representatives?

Mr Ford: There may not be a valid comparison between people who stand for election to Westminster on an abstentionist platform, and Ministers. I have a sense of déjà vu from the discussion that we had on strand one matters. Why would a Minister want to be part of an Executive if he or she did not have confidence in it, or if he or she were not prepared to play a full role in it? It seems that positions have been reversed on opposite sides of the table.

Mr P Robinson: The answer is: to stop somebody else from having it.

Mr Ford: That is not necessarily a good argument for the construction of an Executive. Although one might make that case to prevent somebody else from occupying a parliamentary seat, an Executive has other responsibilities.

Dr Farren: The proposal simply provides added reassurance that Ministers will discharge their duties.

Mr Campbell: I certainly do not have a problem with the proposal, provided that it is based on that premise.

Dr Farren: How the premise relates to the formation of the Executive is not the topic of discussion: it is what will happen when several Ministers have been nominated and, in accepting their nominations, have committed themselves, through the Pledge of Office, to attend meetings of the Executive, the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council.

If it were assured that we would all be good boys and girls, perhaps rules and regulations would not be needed. Unfortunately, however, they are needed because we are not always good boys and girls.

Mr Campbell: The proposal would not have to stop there.

Dr Farren: I know that.

Mr Campbell: Other conditions could be included, such as Ministers having to do x, y and z, and we must find out, in advance, whether each and every one of them fulfils those obligations.

Mr P Robinson: Perhaps that is the issue. It is more a matter for the ministerial code.

Dr Farren: The DUP pushes for that kind of approach from time to time.

Mr P Robinson: It is absurd. If there were an agreement to form an Executive, it is unconscionable that those who form that Executive and who want it to be formed would not attend whatever meetings were required.

Dr Farren: I would like to think that that would be the case.

Mr McNarry: To cut to the chase, are we saying that the assurance is that the precedent created and operated by the DUP in the previous Executive would not be followed by others in any newly formed Executive? Is that a restraining order? Are we looking for that assurance? That precedent worked, and the fact is — I will choose my words carefully — that the DUP got away with it. DUP Ministers saw everything to do with the Executive and the cross-border bodies. They were familiar with all those issues; the Ministers rotated, but they stayed outside the room and did not participate in Executive decisions. Is that what we want to curtail, so that no one else can do it?

Dr Farren: The DUP seeks reassurance from others on various matters, which, in a restoration situation, could be assumed in any case. In our view the DUP sinned on previous occasions — it may not be willing to accept that fact. The SDLP wants a reassurance that all key duties will be fully respected and acted upon. That is the point that I am making.

Mr P Robinson: Let us make it clear. During the course of the previous Assembly and Executive, the DUP was not simply in opposition to those who were in the Executive; it was in opposition to the whole process. It sought to oppose and expose that process, which is why it took the position that it did. Because of the strength of the party, we have to assume that if a new Executive were formed, it would be with the consent of the DUP, so the issue would not arise. However, that matter should be included in the ministerial code.

Other matters flow directly from that issue, such as the right of Ministers who have a prime responsibility for a subject to be the chosen Minister. Those issues must be addressed. If the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister decide that someone other than the Minister of Education should speak about an education issue, Members may feel aggrieved. There are issues surrounding who should be the Minister.

In normal circumstances, the appropriate Minister would be selected, but there might be circumstances in which that might not happen. If the Minister of Education held a peculiar view on a particular education issue that was inconsistent with the Executive’s position, it might be deemed appropriate to select somebody else. Those issues could be discussed in the context of the ministerial code.

Mr Campbell: In which case Dr Farren would be the sinner.

Dr Farren: I am often the sinner.

Mr Campbell: That is the first step.

Dr Farren: Without prejudice to the reference to the Pledge of Office, I accept what Mr Robinson says about the ministerial code being an appropriate place in which to include a commitment to the responsibilities that I outlined. If that is a first step on the issue, let us ensure —

Mr P Robinson: I have no difficulty with that, because I am not in any way embarrassed by past practice. I always thought that the people who devised the system that allowed “Ministers of Opposition” needed their heads felt in the first place. It was their system, not mine.

Mr Ford: I am delighted that Mr Robinson feels that he is in a position to give guarantees of good behaviour in the future.

Mr P Robinson: The DUP is always well behaved, but I cannot guarantee that for anybody else.

Mr Ford: Mr Robinson seemed to be guaranteeing that there was no need to include responsibilities for attending meetings in the Pledge of Office or in the ministerial code because the DUP intended to behave itself in the future. The implicit assumption was that everybody else was guaranteed to behave themselves anyway.

There is a valid point —

Mr P Robinson: I am glad that Mr Ford recognises that that was not a valid point.

Mr Ford: There is a further valid point: if an issue has arisen about the duty of Ministers to attend meetings, an issue will almost certainly arise about the right of Ministers who have a particular interest to attend. The Alliance Party has concerns about the sectarianism of nominating Ministers to North/South Ministerial Council meetings, whereby no unionist Minister can attend without a nationalist Minister also having to attend to keep an eye on him or her, and vice versa. That would be rendered completely unnecessary if the Executive operated on the basis of collective responsibility, in the expectation that Ministers could agree not only on attendance of meetings but on what the Executive policy should be in the first instance.

Mr P Robinson: It would certainly be less of an issue, but it would not prevent an item being included on the agenda that had not perhaps been considered by the Executive — or, for that matter, an issue that arose during a discussion on an agenda item. Those circumstances would have to be considered.

Mr McNarry: It is an interesting discussion, but I do not know where it is going.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That had occurred to me.

Mr McNarry: As far as I can tell, Mr Robinson has given us an assurance that the DUP will participate. As to behaviour, there can be no assurances on that. Dr Farren’s proposal seems to be looking for assurances along the lines that he has teased out. That is either sufficient or it is not; I hope that it is and that we can move on.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The proposal is that the nominations to attend North/South Ministerial Council meetings, and the requirement to attend, be incorporated into the ministerial code. Is that acceptable?

Mr P Robinson: Some other issues probably need to be incorporated as well, such as who should attend.

Dr Farren: Can I take it that whatever else Mr Robinson is hinting at would be —

Mr P Robinson: I am talking about ensuring that the appropriate Minister attends — for example, if his or her departmental issues are to be addressed.

Dr Farren: In so far as was possible, that was attempted during the previous Assembly, but it is a separate issue.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Would the inclusion of the word “nominations” in the proposal cover that concern as to who attends? Is it wide enough? We will return to the ministerial code at a later stage, and we will not preclude any debate on these issues.

Mr O’Dowd: Can I suggest that the matter be left until then? I have no difficulty with the proposal as it currently stands, but I am concerned by Peter Robinson’s remark about the “appropriate Minister”. For instance, if a Minister holds a peculiar view on, for example, education, I see a line for exclusion in that. It would be more useful to return to this matter during the debate on the ministerial code.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do members have any problems with the general proposal?

Mr O’Dowd: Can you read it out again, please?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The proposal is that nominations to the North/South Ministerial Council meetings, and a requirement to attend, be incorporated into the ministerial code.

Dr Farren: My final point is that that duty in the ministerial code would probably include the British-Irish Council and the Executive.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): By putting that comment in Hansard, you have achieved that. There will be a wide-ranging discussion on the ministerial code, so you can be guaranteed that those issues will be raised again.

Can we take it that there are no other burning issues on the North/South Ministerial Council? Are members content?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members happy enough to move on? That being the case, we can move on to the other issues that arose from the various submissions and the Hansard report.

We will follow the usual format, and members should speak for a maximum of five minutes on one or all of the issues — not that anyone has taken the full time so far this morning. Members can then indicate to me if they wish to ask questions or raise a subject matter.

Mr Ford: I must confess that I am not sure what the first point means:

“Assembly decision for issues outside departmental responsibilities”.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That came from the DUP.

Mr Ford: I am not sure what that means in this context. I shall await with interest what the DUP has to say on that. We have already tossed around the matter of the interdependency of the institutions.

1.15 pm

The establishment of a North/South consultative forum is part of the agreement and must be considered, although I suspect that I will probably apply the O’Dowd argument to that, if John does not mind my misquoting him. I agree that as there was so much difficulty in establishing a role for the Civic Forum, it would be better to have the institutions up and running before we attempt to make further progress.

I have already made clear my position on the North/South parliamentary forum and on developing other cross-border bodies as appropriate.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The point:

“Assembly decision for issues outside departmental responsibilities”

was taken from the DUP’s written submission. No doubt Mr Robinson will take the opportunity to explain that in his contribution.

Mr P Robinson: You may not doubt it, but I need someone to indicate what that is shorthand for in our proposals.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I have a copy here:

“NSMC/BIC agendas. The relevant legislation would be amended as necessary to make clear that where a matter on the agenda for a meeting of the NSMC or BIC was one outside the responsibilities of a Minister due to attend, because it was outside his or her departmental responsibilities and not covered by a transfer of authority from another Minister it would be subject to a decision of the Assembly.”

Mr Ford: That is clear now.

Mr P Robinson: You have clarified that, so I do not now need to speak about it.

I will start by addressing the point on the status of the North/South bodies and whether they should stand alone or be part of the British-Irish Council. The DUP believes that the British Isles as a whole should be the axis on which we should compartmentalise. Therefore, North/South bodies should not stand alone. Rather than having a separate relationship, they should form part of the overall relationships within these islands, and there should be a British-Irish axis.

The DUP has said publicly on several occasions that it will consider the establishment of a North/South parliamentary forum in the context of an overall agreement. We have misgivings about the type of forum that is being suggested. The DUP believes in a parliamentary “association” as opposed to what is being defined as a parliamentary “forum”. Any Member of Parliament can join and take part in the proceedings of the parliamentary associations at Westminster. The North/South parliamentary forum would be restricted. Only a percentage of people — in accordance with party strengths, and so forth —would be entitled to attend. It would not be an inclusive body. Therefore, it might be set up for purposes other than parliamentarians getting to know each other and share views on issues.

The North/South consultative forum would probably have as much value as the Civic Forum — and everyone knows my view on that from previous discussions. There are enough areas in the labyrinth of structures that we have been considering to allow for consultation with civic society. We do not need to construct or, more importantly, pay for another one. I am not a great supporter of that proposal.

The DUP believes that the British-Irish Council should have a secretariat. The secretariat of the North/South Ministerial Council has provided much of the drive that led to the multiplicity of North/South meetings. The lack of a similar secretariat on the British-Irish Council, or east-west front, is probably one reason that it has a much lower profile. If the intention is to have equivalence between the two bodies, that will happen only if a secretariat drives forward the British-Irish Council.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that a formal proposal?

Mr P Robinson: Yes.

Mr O’Dowd: We need to discuss further what the DUP means by:

“Assembly decision for issues outside departmental responsibilities”.

Sinn Féin has already commented on the interdependency of the institutions. We are in favour of establishing a North/South consultative forum, a North/South parliamentary forum and other cross-border bodies.

The status of North/South bodies is legislated for under the 1998 Act and the Good Friday Agreement, and we see no need to change that.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does the SDLP wish to comment?

Dr Farren: Since the DUP raised the first point:

“Assembly decision for issues outside departmental responsibilities”

I am wondering whether it is related to paragraph 3(iii) of strand two of the Good Friday Agreement:

“The Council to meet in different formats: in an appropriate format to consider institution or cross-sectoral matters (including in relation to the EU) and to resolve disagreement.”

There was discussion during some of the general plenary meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council of how we might meet in cross-sectoral format. I wonder whether that was in the minds of the DUP with respect to matters outside departmental responsibilities.

I am in favour of what the NSMC was proposing to do, although we never got round to meeting in cross-sectoral format. Alongside the meetings that were held in the specific sectoral formats, Ministers with appropriate responsibilities could have met to address issues that crossed their departmental boundaries. Given that there is no immediate congruence between all the portfolios, North and South, it might be necessary for more than one Minister from either side to attend as the lead Minister on occasions where such matters were being addressed. That requires consideration.

We have already heard quite a bit about the interdependence of the institutions. I accept the principle.

I would not reject the notion of a North/South consultative forum as easily as Mr Robinson seems to. The agreement makes provision for consideration to be given to the establishment of an independent consultative forum and the bringing together of representatives from leading sections of civic society North and South, perhaps twice a year. That would be a helpful source of advice from the perspective of those particular sectors. We should consider the establishment of such an independent consultative forum. I believe that initial ideas on this were being put together by the North/South secretariat before suspension.

As for the parliamentary forum, it would be useful to have that in the more structured way that is suggested in the agreement. It would be a forum in which matters of mutual interest and concern would be discussed, and it would provide an opportunity for people to get to know one other, and for the type of informal contacts that are often wanting in North/South relationships at political and, in particular, parliamentary level, to be positively developed.

I have not spoken specifically about the need for other cross-border implementation bodies. However, the SDLP has a number of proposals that would enhance the range and work of the existing bodies and which would allow us to consider other areas that could be included in their remits. The Assembly would have to agree to any further development of the North/South areas of co-operation and the North/South implementation bodies. We should not shy from such a discussion. However, we must always bear in mind that whatever our ideological approaches, the key test is whether those bodies are of practical benefit to people, North and South.

Finally, we do not accept the arguments for the DUP’s inclusive approach on this matter. The intensity and need of North/South relationships are such that they could not be addressed effectively in a council, as the DUP has proposed. North/South relationships are different, so that proposal does not commend itself to us in any way.

Mr McGimpsey: I will deal with the issues in no particular order, as we have already drifted across several of them this morning.

The Belfast Agreement clearly states that the institutions are mutually interdependent and that one cannot successfully function without the other. As I said this morning, on 8 March 1999 Paul Murphy said in the House of Commons:

“The North/South Ministerial Council, to which the bodies are accountable, would disappear if there were no Assembly. Similarly, the bodies envisaged in the agreement would disappear.”

That is the deal.

The North/South consultative forum is a little offering straight out of the comprehensive agreement, which arose from discussions that the two Governments had with the DUP and Sinn Féin. We are just lifting bits out of it. The Belfast Agreement states:

“Consideration to be given to the establishment of an independent consultative forum.”

The UUP has not been persuaded of the need for a North/South consultative forum. It does not even believe that the Civic Forum for Northern Ireland has fully vindicated itself. As the party considers the Civic Forum to be redundant, it would therefore not want to see the creation of an even bigger, full-blown forum.

I now turn to the North/South parliamentary forum. The comprehensive agreement states:

“The Northern Ireland Executive would encourage the parties in the Assembly to establish a North-South parliamentary forum bringing together equal numbers from the Oireachtas and the Assembly, and operating on an inclusive basis.”

As matters stand, that would be premature. I do not see how the establishment of such a forum would make a difference, as far as reaching agreement is concerned. Mechanisms already exist to facilitate North/South discussions, if they are to be entered into. The establishment of a parliamentary forum would thus be unnecessary, given the number of other North/South bodies that are already floating about.

To discuss the creation of more cross-border bodies is pretty much to open a Pandora’s box. The agreement was “six-six” — that six implementation bodies would be set up and six further areas of co-operation would be identified — and one was a quid pro quo for strands one, two and three, which are each mutually interdependent. When one element of a quid pro quo agreement is altered, it is very difficult to maintain that agreement. It seems that there will be no agreement on the proposal to increase the number of cross-border bodies. However, the comprehensive agreement proposes the establishment of a review group to examine objectively the case for additional bodies and areas of co-operation. Again, as matters currently stand, that is a long shot. It would be a step too far.

Are there any issues that I have missed? As regards:

“Status of North South Bodies (stand-alone or part of the British Irish Council)”,

our problem with the British-Irish Council was that it did not have a satisfactory secretariat and, therefore, functioned poorly. I would be concerned if that were reinforced. The British-Irish Council must work and operate properly. That requires a three-strand approach, with each strand dependent on the others. If one does not work, the others do not work: that was the deal. I am not clear how that would operate under a British-Irish Council. My party sees the British-Irish Council as being important because it recognises the common polity of the British Isles, North/South bodies and strand one as part of the quid pro quo.

1.30 pm

As regards:

“Assembly decision for issues outside departmental responsibilities”,

that has been washed around today. However, nobody has defined what the issues are. It seems to me that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, with its cross-cutting and co-ordinating role, would have a responsibility to bring matters that are outside departmental remits to the Assembly for decision.

Mr P Robinson: The establishment of an independent North/South consultative forum was not part of the comprehensive agreement. Annex B, paragraph 8 of the proposals for changes in strand two and strand three institutions contains carefully formulated terminology suggesting that the establishment of a North/South consultative forum would be a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive to determine.

There is a conflict with regard to the review of the implementation bodies that is proposed in the comprehensive agreement. The unionist view is that the number of implementation bodies should be reduced; the nationalist view is that there should be additional ones. All that shows is that there was no agreement on the issue. The Governments took that into account.

“Assembly decision for issues outside departmental responsibilities”,

it appears, refers to paragraph 4 of the proposals on strands two and three in the comprehensive agreement, which states that when a topic arises that does not fit neatly into a departmental portfolio, then rather than have a random Minister take responsibility for it, the Assembly would take a view. I am not sure that that is likely to occur often. I suppose that it will depend on how many Departments there are. There is already conflict within some of them. For instance, the Department for Regional Development (DRD) is responsible for energy policy. In my view, energy is better dealt with by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI), though one could argue that it is the responsibility of DRD. If an energy policy issue arises, therefore, it could be decided upon by the Assembly.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you intend to make a proposal on matters that fall outside the remit of a specific Minister? Does the party feel particularly strongly about that?

Mr P Robinson: There are two ways to deal with that. One is for the Executive to agree on which Minister should deal with the subject. If there were conflict with regard to joint ownership of it, it would, presumably, be the role of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to determine which Minister would speak on behalf of the Executive. As we discussed earlier with regard to the ministerial code, it is difficult to determine which Minister is responsible for an area where there is conflict or an overlap.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): So you are just putting it on the record, as it were.

There was one suggestion that seemed non-controversial, which was that the British-Irish Council should have its own secretariat — in the same way that the North/South Ministerial Council has its own secretariat. There did not seem to be any great opposition to that. May I put that to the meeting to get it out of the way?

Mr McGimpsey: A standing secretariat.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any problems with that?

Mr O’Dowd: I will be the fly in the ointment again. We will have no consensus on that matter.

Mr P Robinson: I assume that Sinn Féin is moving back from its 2004 position on that issue.

Mr O’Dowd: As Mr Robinson is aware, the comprehensive agreement was not implemented. His party walked away from it.

Mr P Robinson: There are two issues that flow from that. First, it is clear that Sinn Féin walked away. They took cold feet and held a press conference before the discussions had even concluded. Secondly, whether the agreement was proceeded with or not, I do not recall that Sinn Féin had any difficulty with this issue back in 2004, and I wonder, irrespective of what happened to the overall agreement, why it is a problem now.

Are we saying that there should not be a secretariat — that there is some point in principle why we should not have a secretariat for east-west matters? What is the point of principle?

Mr O’Dowd: I am not saying that it is a point of principle. I said that we are not going to get consensus on it today. Mr Robinson said earlier that there might be matters that would be raised at future engagements; this may be a matter for a future engagement.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We do not have consensus on that.

Dr Farren, did you want to make a proposal for a North/South consultative forum? You seemed quite keen on that idea.

Dr Farren: There is provision for consideration of the establishment of an independent consultative forum, although the comprehensive agreement does not explain by whom the consideration should be given. Is it solely the responsibility of the two Administrations — the Executive, and the Cabinet in the South? Leaving that aside, we would certainly propose in the course of any consideration that there be an independent consultative forum.

Mr McGimpsey: May I offer some clarification on this issue? Mr Robinson appeared to say that it was not agreed in the comprehensive agreement. In annex B it is quite clear that:

“The Northern Ireland Executive would support the establishment of an independent North/South consultative forum appointed by the two Administrations”.

Not “could” but “would”. There is clearly an imperative there.

“The Northern Ireland Executive would encourage the parties in the Assembly to establish a North-South parliamentary forum”.

The point of the latter is that the parties in this deal, as part of the Northern Ireland Executive, “would encourage” the parties in the Assembly. We can take it as read that the two parties involved with the two Governments would be in there as part of that.

We had a little exchange there in which Mr O’Dowd said that the comprehensive agreement was not implemented and that the DUP walked away; and Mr Robinson said that Sinn Féin walked away. Clearly, there was some form of pre-agreement agreement between the two Governments, Sinn Féin and the DUP that they:

“would support the establishment of an independent North/South consultative forum”

and

“would encourage the parties in the Assembly to establish a North-South parliamentary forum”.

I am concerned about those side deals and where the real discussion is going on. Dr Farren can make his proposal. I am already on record as saying that the Northern Ireland Civic Forum is redundant. I do not see why we need another one. There are enough bodies floating around for co-operation without yet another — this North/South parliamentary forum.

I am concerned that we will go through this dance, and then at the end of it all, when Sinn Féin, the DUP and the two Governments get together for discussion as they inevitably will during the autumn, this is all going to cough out.

John says that the comprehensive agreement was not implemented and that the DUP walked away; Peter says that it was Sinn Féin that walked away from it. Therefore, I wonder about the point of much of this discussion.

Mr P Robinson: What happened is public knowledge. We were in the final days of negotiations when Mr Adams called a press conference and took his ball home with him. That was the end of that process. That annoyed the Government so much that they came over here and announced proposals that they had been considering anyway.

It is very clear that the DUP did not, at any stage, agree to the establishment of an independent consultative forum. The two Governments put forward the proposal, but the proposal required that its establishment be an action of the Northern Ireland Executive. Therefore, it did not have our support. It would not have happened under present circumstances.

Mrs Long: Whatever else might be said about the comprehensive agreement, we can at least agree that it was not agreed.

I want clarification of Seán’s proposal. Does he propose that consideration be given to a consultative forum being set up or that the forum be set up? Those two proposals differ slightly. We would be happy with one, but probably not with the other.

Dr Farren: I am following the proposal in the Good Friday Agreement, which states:

“Consideration to be given to the establishment of an independent consultative forum appointed by the two Administrations.”

The SDLP certainly believes that a consultative forum should be established, not because it wants a plethora of bodies, but because such a forum would make a useful contribution and would enable leading representatives from key sectors of civic society — and not always the same key sectors — to engage in consultation. We must consider how that kind of advice can be best provided. A consultative forum would enable the future development of North/South relations in general and, in particular, of those areas for which the North/South Ministerial Council has responsibility. My proposal is that consideration should be given to a consultative forum. Have we moved on to considering its formal establishment?

Mrs Long: That was what I want to be clarified. I want to know whether your proposal was that we should consider the establishment of a forum or agree to its establishment.

Dr Farren: I am saying that we should consider it. I do not believe that today’s discussion amounts to a comprehensive consideration of the matter. The discussion has been on the general concept of a forum.

Mr P Robinson: Neither do I. No one has yet put a case for a consultative forum, other than to say that the agreement provides for it. Nobody has told me why it would be a good thing, why it is necessary or why the money to be spent on it would not be better spent elsewhere. What is the value of it?

Dr Farren: I tried to explain that a few moments ago.

Mr P Robinson: The only thing that you said was that it was part of the Belfast Agreement.

Dr Farren: I said that it would be useful for representatives from key sectors of civic society to meet. I support the case for a consultative forum in the same way that I support the case for the Civic Forum. If the Committee wants serious consideration of the proposition, I am prepared to bring more detailed proposals.

Mr P Robinson: The general view of the Civic Forum was that, as a limited number of people were involved, a limited part of civic society was represented. There are many other ways in which representatives of civic society can give their views to Government.

Exactly the same applies to a North/South consultative forum to which there are alternatives that do not involve further expenditure. There is no constitutional issue: it is just a waste of money.

1.45 pm

Dr Farren: We will need evidence of what you referred to as the “general view”. I do not include myself in the “general view” that the Civic Forum was a waste of time and money and was unrepresentative. I do not accept those judgements. We must not be so dismissive. Quite a number of highly respected people participated in the Civic Forum. There were frustrations but those were a result of the frustrations that affected the general political situation. We should give serious consideration to the retention of the Civic Forum and the creation of a North/South consultative forum, as proposed in the Good Friday Agreement.

Mr McGimpsey: A North/South consultative forum is mentioned in the agreement. However the agreement states only that parties should give it their “consideration”. The UUP has considered it and was not convinced. That remains our position on an interparliamentary forum and the Civic Forum.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Unless I hear otherwise, it is clear that the UUP and DUP do not agree to either the consideration or establishment of a North/South consultative forum. As there is no consensus, Seán’s proposal falls.

We have examined the catch-all “Other Issues” category. Should any other points have been raised during that discussion?

Mr Ford: Yes. When we were discussing an interparliamentary forum, Peter talked about an interparliamentary association.

Mr P Robinson: Instead of a forum.

Mr Ford: Is that a formal proposal?

Mr P Robinson: I do not think that it would achieve consensus.

Mr Ford: You are not normally so reticent.

Mr Campbell: It is catching.

Mr P Robinson: I do not see the benefit of putting forward a proposal that I know will not run.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any other points?

Mr D Bradley: The only time that we reached consensus all day was at the break for lunch, since when there has been none. Sinn Féin objected to the annual presentations being made in the Assembly on behalf of the North/South Ministerial Council and also to the east-west body having a secretariat. Those minor proposals are not high on the Richter scale. Nevertheless, they should have been agreed today and they were not.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have not made as much progress on reaching agreement as we did on Friday. However, the Committee operates under the rule of consensus.

Mr P Robinson: Is a change in personnel needed to reach consensus?

Mr Campbell: Might the two things be linked?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I do not know, but it is disappointing that we have not made much progress today. However, as we are bound by the rule of consensus, we must proceed on that basis.

The Committee Clerk has just made an important point. Normally, when the Committee has not reached consensus, those who objected have been asked to indicate whether they merely disagree with certain proposals or consider them to be major impediments to devolution. When the reports are being written, it is important to distinguish between the issues that are major obstacles over which parties will die in a ditch and those on which there is merely disagreement.

Does Sinn Féin consider anything to which it has objected to be an impediment to devolution?

Mr O’Dowd: No. I was about to make that point when I noticed that the Committee Clerk was speaking to you. None of the issues to which Sinn Féin has objected today are deal breakers. We may reach agreement on some after further discussion and debate, but we will simply not reach consensus on others today. That is normally how politics works.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is still no decision on the Northern Ireland Audit Office issue, but I will let members know when I receive it.

Is that as far as we can take the other issues?

Mr O’Dowd: Did the DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party not withdraw consensus from a few matters as well?

Mr P Robinson: I want to make it clear that some issues are deal breakers. The accountability of the North/South Ministerial Council to the Assembly in strand two is a vital issue for the DUP.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): What about the Ulster Unionists?

Mr McGimpsey: Nothing that we have discussed today is of strategic importance. Everything can be talked through.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Alliance did not break any consensus today.

Dr Farren: We will come back to the issues on which we have not reached agreement. We will then weigh up what has and has not been agreed.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any other issues that members feel have not been adequately dealt with? If I do not hear from anybody, we will move on to strand three.

There are some housekeeping and procedural issues to deal with. Members will recall that the Secretary of State referred a work programme to the Committee on 3 July 2006. Under “October” it states:

“Parties conclude discussions and finalise draft Programme for Government and draft Ministerial Code.”

We need to decide how to proceed. Members have spoken at length this morning about the ministerial code, and it has come up several times in deliberations during the past few weeks. What do members feel is the best way of taking the issue forward so that we have something for October?

Mr P Robinson: On the basis of our discussion earlier, we first need to clarify whether we are talking about the code of conduct in schedule 4 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; the ministerial code drafted by the previous Executive; an amendment to the code of conduct; or a new ministerial code to be put in legislation with key elements of the existing draft ministerial code. The draft code ran to about 50 pages. Perhaps it would be too chunky to go into a schedule to the legislation.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is important that we clarify the issue. I assume that no member has the answer to those questions this afternoon.

Mr P Robinson: We generally agree that the ministerial code should be put on a statutory basis. Could we provide a paper, for the next meeting or the one after that, on what we see as the key elements that should be in a ministerial code or in the statutory element of a ministerial code? Presumably the Executive could produce, and the Assembly could agree, the full ministerial code when an Executive is up and running.

As regards legislation, and the elements to be legislated for, we have talked about support for the institutions of law. It could well be that we would have some unanimity on that point, and that that should be included in statute.

Dr Farren: It is sensible to ask parties for their views on what they regard as essential elements to be included in statute and what else is needed. I think that that proposal was made earlier this morning.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Would the Committee prefer the parties to do that, rather than asking the Clerks to go through the various documents and trawl out the views? Is it simply that a fresh paper from each party is required?

Dr Farren: Obviously, parties are going to have their own views anyway. Could the secretariat do what you are suggesting?

Mr P Robinson: We could amend it, so it does not matter which way we choose to go.

Dr Farren: It would not preclude parties from preparing their own papers. If the secretariat would like to be helpful in trying to identify the common areas then that would be a useful contribution.

Mr P Robinson: Are we asking them to produce a paper with common issues, or the issues that have been raised by one or more parties?

Dr Farren: Could they do both?

The Committee Clerk: We can study Hansard to see what views have been expressed, and those that have not, and we will be able to see where there has been diversity among parties. We can highlight those issues and circulate them to members if they so wish. That could be a useful starting point.

Mr P Robinson: One difficulty will be that we agreed in general terms that the ministerial code should be used to provide greater accountability. However, specific proposals will be needed when producing the code itself.

Mr McGimpsey: There is also the matter of the draft document’s status — I am still not certain about that. Part of it is marked “agreed version”. However, the rest is not marked.

The Committee Clerk: The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister said that that device is used to differentiate that part from earlier drafts.

Mr McGimpsey: Is this draft code just one of many that have been sent back and forth?

The Committee Clerk: The one that you are using is the final draft.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Perhaps it would be better that the parties draw up their views on this important issue. Do we have a time span for the next meeting? Presumably, it will be next Monday.

Dr Farren: Would it be helpful if the parties submitted their papers to the secretariat before the next meeting, so that Committee staff could identify the common areas?

Mr P Robinson: Is it necessary to have this before the next meeting?

Dr Farren: No; perhaps the one in a fortnight’s time.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That date will be 4 September 2006. Is it possible to submit papers to the Clerks in time for the next meeting? That will give them a week to go through the papers. A brief list of options is all that is required.

Having considered the code of conduct, what shall we do about the Programme for Government?

Mr P Robinson: We have a long road to travel before we reach that stage.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Secretary of State is expecting us to conclude discussions and finalise the draft Programme of Government by the end of October.

Mr O’Dowd: Has the Committee formally agreed the work plan?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It has been laid down as a Holy Writ from the Secretary of State. The Committee did not agree to any of it.

Mr O’Dowd: In the past, certain members always noted reference to it. I have no problem with it.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We want to make members aware of those two issues.

Dr Farren: If there is a reasonable level of agreement on the report from the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland, that would form a significant part of a provisional — if I can use the word “provisional” — Programme for Government. Any Programme for Government would have to be endorsed by the Government ­— those who are going to participate in it — and that would go beyond this Committee.

Mr P Robinson: With respect, not all of the parties here would be involved in drafting a Programme for Government.

Dr Farren: That is why I used the word “provisional”.

Mrs Long: That issue was raised when the timetable was put in front of us. Although the Alliance Party would be content to contribute ideas, it would most likely be in opposition —

Dr Farren: Do not count yourselves out.

Mr Ford: Everybody else seems to.

Dr Farren: We do not.

Mrs Long: My party would, perhaps, not be welcome in those discussions.

Mr P Robinson: Unless there is a voluntary coalition.

Mrs Long: Of course.

Mr Ford: The tenor of discussions in recent weeks would suggest that a voluntary coalition is unlikely to attract consensus.

Mrs Long: There is certainly no consensus on that matter.

Mr Ford: I want to give a serious response to Dr Farren’s point, which others may or may not choose to take any notice of. I have no doubt that the work of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland will be of some use to those who are working on a Programme for Government, but it does not cover that much ground. Its focus is more on private-sector growth than the responsibilities across the full range of Government Departments.

Dr Farren: I appreciate that.

Mr Ford: It would be interesting if somebody could produce the previous Programmes for Government, the most recent of which was being debated in the Assembly just before suspension. It would be useful to ascertain how much of those programmes has been carried out thus far. That might expose a few gaps and enable members to discuss possibilities for the next Programme for Government.

2.00 pm

Mr P Robinson: Mr Chairman, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the Secretary of State’s edict contains the work plan for this Committee, but, of course, it does not. It is his timetable, which takes us through to November. It includes items that have nothing whatsoever to do with this Committee, one of which is probably the Programme for Government.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee could decide that it would —

Mr P Robinson: It could not.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Well, it could, but perhaps it will not.

Mr P Robinson: It could not. It is for the Executive to determine the Programme for Government. This Committee will not be the Executive, so what possible benefit can be gained from its discussing the draft Programme for Government?

Mrs Long: The Programme for Government is included in the Committee’s terms of reference. During the Committee’s first few weeks, there was much discussion on the terms of reference and the chairmanship — there were also many other belaboured and fruitless debates. There was a long debate on whether it was appropriate for the Committee to discuss the Programme for Government, and I commented that I was not sure that it was, given that the Alliance Party was at the table and expected to be in opposition. As far as I can recall, the Preparation for Government Committee was not only to consider barriers to restoration, but also to prepare a programme of work. Thus, it was part of the Committee’s original terms of reference, in accordance with the Secretary of State’s direct correspondence to the Committee.

Mr P Robinson: The Secretary of State is fairly clear on this: it is the parties’ responsibility, not a Committee’s.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): If the consensus is that we do not deal with this matter, that is fine, but we must make a decision one way or the other. What are members’ views? Dr Farren, have you any comments?

Dr Farren: No.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There seems to be consensus that we should not take the issue any further.

Mr Campbell: The Northern Ireland political process work plan specifically states that, in October, parties — rather than the Committee — are to conclude discussions and finalise a draft Programme for Government.

Mr McGimpsey: We must be realistic; any Programme of Government is a matter for an Executive, not a Committee.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Right, that is fair enough. We will move on.

The issue of explosives was raised at the meeting of 16 August 2006. I must emphasise that we were discussing explosives that are used for legitimate purposes such as quarrying, road laying and so forth. There was a question as to whether that should be the responsibility of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety or a new policing and justice Minister. We asked for some material on the issue, and I have received a letter dated 15 August 2006. Have members had a chance to read it?

Mr P Robinson: What kind of material?

Mr Campbell: Material for explosives.

Mr Paisley Jnr: Have we got the material?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Any thoughts on the issue? Dare I ask if there are any experts on explosives in the room?

Mr P Robinson: Why is everybody looking in one direction? [Laughter.]

Mr O’Dowd: Sorry, Chairman, I am just checking my diary. I take it that the matter was raised at the PFG Committee dealing with law and order?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, the question was asked as to whether the legitimate use of explosives should fall under the remit of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety or of a new policing and justice Minister, whenever he or she is appointed. We asked for a note on the matter.

Mr O’Dowd: Did the PFG Committee dealing with law and order ask this Committee, which deals with institutional issues, to deal with it?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, it did.

Mr O’Dowd: Passing the buck, I think.

Mr Paisley Jnr: We will advise our members on the PFG Committee dealing with law and order where that issue would be most effectively placed.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are we to pass the issue back to the PFG Committee dealing with law and order, which meets on Wednesday?

Mr Paisley Jnr: Some members here will be at that meeting.

Mr P Robinson: Further consideration should be given to it, and it could be raised on Wednesday.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have made a lot of progress today, have we not? I have to go, folks.

(The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.)

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Members are advised that we have finished our discussions on strand two issues. Do members wish to begin to discuss strand three issues, or to leave that until the next meeting? Monday is a bank holiday, so it has been suggested that we have our next meeting on Tuesday 29 August, unless members want to come in on the bank holiday.

Mr McGimpsey: That suggestion would have little support.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is there no consensus on that?

The Committee Clerk: We would have to arrange doorkeepers and open the Building. It would be very difficult.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members want to continue with other issues in relation to strand three?

Mr P Robinson: Is there anything in that that we have not discussed?

Dr Farren: The British-Irish Council?

Mr P Robinson: I was referring to strand three issues.

Mrs Long: In our discussion on the third part of strand two, we strayed into some strand three items such as the British-Irish Council and a possible secretariat. Much of this has already been discussed.

Mr Campbell: It is equally true that many strand one issues spilt over onto strand two.

Mr McGimpsey: Strand three issues are important. I suggest that we return to that discussion on Tuesday 29 August.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It may take only one meeting, but there are several different issues for consideration.

Dr Farren: We spoke earlier about familiarising ourselves with the work of the British-Irish Council. We should take that issue seriously between now and then.

Mr P Robinson: That material could be sent out to us before our next meeting.

Dr Farren: There is a great deal of information about the work of the British-Irish Council on its website. I am sure that you have visited it frequently.

Mr P Robinson: It is on my “Favourites” list.

Dr Farren: Good. [Laughter.]

Mr Campbell: He will not tell you what else is on his “Favourites” list.

Mr Ford: Is this private banter, or can anybody join in?

Dr Farren: You might be surprised about what goes on there.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Can information be circulated before the next meeting, so that members are up to date and have something to read on the bank holiday?

Mr P Robinson: We said earlier that we should be provided with reports of meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The report of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland is to be presented for consideration at next week’s meeting, so that will have to be factored into our work programme. We will also have to discuss motions for the plenary debates on 11 and 12 September, which could concern the work of the subgroup or other issues. The report will be available for members of the subgroup before those dates.

Mr P Robinson: May I ask whether officials are drafting reports in parallel to these meetings?

The Committee Clerk: There are separate Committee Clerks for each of the three meetings. We are starting to pull together the reports on the institutional issues, the law-and-order issues, and rights, safeguards, equality issues and victims.

Mr P Robinson: You will be working overtime. [Laughter.]

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is difficult for the staff to facilitate these meetings and also to draw up reports. After today’s meeting, the report will start to gel. Much work will be needed to gel everything together.

Mr O’Dowd: At this stage, the only group to confirm that it will present a report to this Committee is the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland.

The Committee Clerk: The subgroup meets tomorrow and on Thursday to agree a report, which it will table before this Committee. If the Committee accepts the report, it will be ordered to be published. At next Tuesday’s meeting, members will consider whether they have a motion on the report to submit to the Business Committee, which hopes to meet on 5 September.

We will discuss the code of conduct on 4 September and try to finalise a report on the institutions after that. The report on law-and-order issues will be discussed at the following meeting. The final report on rights, safeguards, equality issues and victims will be discussed at the meeting after that. A timetable is available.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have parked many issues; the car park has been filling up, and it must now be emptied. We will have to revisit all those issues.

The Committee Clerk: The two Chairmen have discussed the format of the report. All Hansard reports and any papers that the parties have submitted will be included, and the Committee staff will produce a summary. The report will begin with the proposals and issues on which the Committee has agreed, as well as the issues that parties have identified as deal-breakers — we could find another form of words for that, if members prefer — and those that have been parked for further discussion.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Committee may also wish to consider having a closed meeting, with no Hansard report, to discuss particular issues in detail at some stage.

Mrs Long: Chairman, is that not the normal procedure when a draft report is being discussed, and may that be the appropriate time for a closed meeting?

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. If members feel that there would be benefits in having a meeting, or part of a meeting, without Hansard, that can be done at any stage. It only requires parties to agree, and it may give the Committee an opportunity to go into more detail on some of the issues that have been set aside.

Adjourned at 2.13 pm.

< previous / next >