Committee on the Tuesday 17 October 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 4.18 pm. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let us begin. I remind members to switch off their mobile phones, as they interfere with the recording system. A Hansard report of this meeting will be produced. There has been a request that officials from the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) be allowed to attend the meeting; they are waiting outside. The Committee needs to agree that those officials can attend the meeting. NIO officials attend meetings of the Business Committee. Mr Kennedy: Who requested that NIO officials be allowed to attend the meeting? Was it the NIO or the Secretary of State? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The understanding of the Clerks is that some of the parties requested that NIO officials attend this meeting, as they attend meetings of the Business Committee. Mr Kennedy: Is anyone prepared to admit to that? Dr Farren: There was some discussion during the talks in Scotland about the Government’s availability for meetings via their officials. We have now come to the point of deciding whether they necessarily have to sit in on meetings. The SDLP has no objection: officials will read the Hansard report anyway. What they can read, they can hear as well. Mr P Robinson: The DUP has no objection either. I assume that the NIO officials want to hear the nuance of our discussions here for drafting purposes should legislative changes arise. Mr McFarland: I would like to enquire about the status of the Committee. Until we went to St Andrews, the Committee was on a scoping exercise and was producing reports that would go forward to the talks — and that was done. The Committee parked some issues for decision at St Andrews. However, due to one thing and another, time was not available to take those decisions. We are now post-St Andrews, and we have the St Andrews Agreement. If we are to move forward, this Committee should take decisions on those issues. What is the point of the Committee if it cannot take decisions and deal with the items that were parked? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Before I call anyone else to speak, I would like to refer to the Secretary of State’s direction to the Speaker on Saturday: “A number of the parties have indicated that they wish to discuss the changes to institutions annex in the PfG. I am happy to facilitate this and to receive any representations by the 31 October.” That is his direction for today’s meeting. Mr P Robinson: There is only one change. The Preparation for Government Committee is as it always has been, with one exception, which the Secretary of State indicates in his letter. He wants a clearer picture of the respective strengths of each party as regards voting on issues. Before, there was a consensual approach: no party’s views were expressed unless all parties agreed. The Secretary of State is now saying that the relevant strengths of the parties in the Assembly are to be reflected in any decisions taken. Dr Farren: It seems that we are taking two issues together. Having NIO officials present at our meetings may be linked to the decision that we take on voting. Alan’s point is pertinent: if the Committee is to take decisions, we will have to agree on whether our parties will be bound by them. The Committee may want to consider whether that requires a formal vote. We need clarification on whether the Committee has moved from scoping into decision making. If we move to the latter, we will bind ourselves to accepting the recommendations that are endorsed — under whatever formula. Perhaps we need to clarify those issues, and the presence, or otherwise, of NIO officials may be determined by the decisions that we make. Mrs Long: The Alliance Party has no objections to NIO officials being present. If one reads carefully what the Secretary of State has written, it becomes clear that there is a difference between what is written and how it is being portrayed. He is saying that votes — as opposed to decisions — will be taken in this Committee, and the Government have only agreed to consider the outcome: they have not committed themselves to implementing decisions. I suspect that, using the system that we operated before, if decisions or votes were unanimous, the Government would be unlikely to oppose them. However, we should not make any presumptions about the role of the Committee and whether it would be making decisions or simply taking votes to record the various party outcomes. Mr Murphy: Three issues are being dealt with here. Sinn Féin is relaxed about the NIO officials attending the meeting. They attend the Business Committee meetings, and if they feel that they have a function to fulfil here, that is well and good. In relation to how the Committee carries out its business, Sinn Féin has always been prepared to resolve any outstanding issues around this table, and it is prepared to do so again. I have serious reservations about the proposed voting arrangements. The implication is that the annexes contain suggestions or proposed legislative changes that would alter the Good Friday Agreement. If the Committee were to vote according to the respective strengths of the parties in the Assembly, that would essentially mean majority rule. I would have to question how the Secretary of State could consider views on alterations to the Good Friday Agreement on the basis of a voting system that does not even have the safeguards of the Good Friday Agreement. Where did he get the notion that the voting system of the Committee needed to change? It is a pity that we do not have more clarity on that, because Sinn Féin has not discussed it with either the Secretary of State or with any other official of the British Government. I have strong reservations about any attempt to change it. If this is, as Peter Robinson suggests, simply a matter of getting a clearer view of how people feel on an issue, the NIO officials present can record in their own notes the strength of the parties’ feelings. This specifically refers to voting, and it would have very serious implications for the agreement if matters could be discussed here that would impact on the British Government’s proposed legislative changes. I am concerned that our discussions here would be represented on the basis of a majority vote, which is not part of the Good Friday Agreement. We are considering a proposition to alter the Good Friday Agreement, and the safeguards in the agreement would be disregarded. That is a very serious situation and I record, in the strongest terms, Sinn Féin’s opposition to changing the voting arrangements in the Committee. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Can I separate the two issues? Do members agree to the NIO officials attending the meeting? They could be part of the further discussions. Mr P Robinson: Who wants to come in? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Hilary Jackson. Mr P Robinson: Just one? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It may not be the same person every time, but Hilary Jackson is here today. Dr Farren: Are they to have observer status? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. The Committee could decide at any time in future, if there were objections, that the officials should not attend. Do members agree? The Committee Clerk: Clare Salters and Hilary Jackson are the NIO officials. Mr McFarland: Chairman, have we lost the light somewhere? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The room seems to be dark. Mr Kennedy: It is the dark days. Mr Ford: Only in your corner. Mr McFarland: Can we turn the light on? Mr Paisley Jnr: Alan has admitted that he is in the dark. Mr McFarland: We need some light over the DUP to brighten their lives a bit. Mr Paisley Jnr: Get that into Hansard. Mr Murphy: Put them in the spotlight. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I thought that there was already a halo there. Mr P Robinson: We are bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, I assure you. Mr Kennedy: Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members agree to NIO officials attending the meeting? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members have any questions? Mr P Robinson: How did we reach that agreement? Did each of the parties vote on it? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Nobody disagreed. We will move to the substantive part of the meeting. 4.30 pm Mr McFarland: Chairman, we have raised three issues, one of which you have dealt with already. The second concerned what the Committee thinks it is doing, and the third dealt with the voting system that the Committee should use hereafter. My understanding is that the proposed system is the same as that which the Business Committee used during the previous Assembly to decide fundamental matters. All that will be referred to the Secretary of State anyway, so I do not see the difficulty. Mr Ford: In response to Conor Murphy’s points, the voting arrangements were discussed at a meeting in St Andrews that some of us attended with the Secretary of State. Conor was probably in a meeting with either the Prime Minister or the Taoiseach at the time; various things happened at the one time. We discussed the Committee’s inability to agree several matters when complete unanimity was required. The point that the Alliance Party made to the Secretary of State was that recording the opinions of parties would allow him to test on the basis of sufficient consent. I remind Alan McFarland that that is not how the Business Committee voted; it operated on a head count of party strengths. The Secretary of State in his letter says that he is “minded to accept” an arrangement that is rather closer to the Business Committee’s operations than what I thought he and his officials agreed to when we put the proposal. I have no doubt that anything that is unanimously agreed in the Committee will weigh heavily with the Secretary of State, and anything that is agreed by four parties, even if the Alliance Party dissented, will have the same effect. The issue is how the strength of opinion is tested, not whether this Committee is passing majoritarian votes. Applying the principle of sufficient consent takes into account the rules that have been used in talks since 1996. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Secretary of State says in his letter that he is “minded to accept” the party-strength arrangement. The Committee operates on consensus, so it must decide whether to accept that position or continue with the current mechanism. That is my interpretation of the letter. Dr Farren: At the risk of simplifying the issue, Hansard records parties’ views when the Committee reaches the point at which recommendations are to be endorsed or not. Although the minutes record that consensus was not reached, Hansard tells us clearly whether the parties expressed their agreement, as is their usual practice. Therefore I cannot see any great difficulty with the Secretary of State’s noting levels of agreement or disagreement. If that is clear in the record, let us not get too hung up on the technicalities of whether we vote in the manner in which the Secretary of State seems to want us to. Mr P Robinson: Is it not sufficient for us to say that there was or was not consensus on an issue? If there is no consensus, should we not simply record those parties that supported and those that opposed a proposition? We will not take final decisions in this Committee. Mr Murphy: That is recorded in Hansard. The fact that two NIO officials are now present at these meetings means that decisions will be recorded twice. The situation in the Business Committee is somewhat different; we are discussing what could be legislative amendments to the Good Friday Agreement, but the Business Committee discusses what should be debated in the Assembly the following week. This discussion is much more significant; therefore any voting processes on issues would also be much more important. If we are to alter the Good Friday Agreement, my party is certainly not prepared to contemplate going back to a voting system that is based on majority rule and which does not even have the safeguards that were built into the agreement in the first place. However, recording how people felt on an issue is another matter. That does not require any change to the Committee’s voting arrangements; it simply requires a change to how matters are recorded. As Seán pointed out, the discussions are already available in Hansard. The NIO officials can make whatever notes they wish, but voting arrangements are not required. The Secretary of State’s letter is explicit. Not only is he “minded to” change the voting arrangements, but he suggests how they should be changed and that people should vote on their respective party strengths. That is about voting: it is about the weight of votes and how many they count for when cast. That is about straightforward voting in the Committee. My party will not accept changes to the way that voting takes place in the Committee. Mr Ford: The logical follow-through to Conor’s remarks is that the Committee should write to the Secretary of State and ask what he meant by that phrase. I agree with Conor that it seems as though the Secretary of State wants there to be a majority voting system, which does not reflect the discussion that some members had when the issue arose earlier. Perhaps discussions with others went down that route. I am slightly bothered that decisions are not always clear in Hansard. The words “Members indicated assent” do not clarify which members did so. It may be necessary for individuals to say whether their party gives its assent or not, so that Hansard can record that full statement. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Perhaps the issue can be resolved so that the Committee will retain its voting arrangements, but that the minutes will record the extent of assent and dissent on proposals. Mr Ford: That is fair enough. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That will clarify which members gave their assent. Is it acceptable to everyone that the Committee will retain its present voting system? Dr Farren: I do not believe that clarification has been given on the point that Alan raised with regard to the mode. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): First, I want to confirm the Committee’s decision on its voting system. Dr Farren: Of course, Mr Chairman. I apologise. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is the Committee agreed that it will retain its current system of consensus, but that the minutes will state which parties gave their consent and which did not? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Seán, did you wish to raise an issue? Dr Farren: I apologise, Mr Chairman, for jumping ahead of you. We have not clarified the mode in which the Committee will operate. Perhaps that is not necessary, except to acknowledge that in the wake of the St Andrews Agreement there is greater urgency and a need for greater clarity and precision in the recommendations that we make. That may answer Alan’s query about whether the Committee is in scoping or negotiation mode. Perhaps we do not need to provide the clarification that he sought initially. Mr Paisley Jnr: Nice try. Mr P Robinson: No change of mode is outlined in the Secretary of State’s direction. The Preparation for Government Committee will continue to do exactly what it was set up to do — to prepare for Government. Seán is correct: the timetable that has been put forward by the Government suggests that the Committee must consider how it does business in accordance with the timescale that requires the Committee to explore any matter that has a legislative impact. There is a series of other preparation for Government matters that can be addressed after 10 November. The Government need details of legislative changes before that date. Mr Murphy: During its first couple of weeks the Committee debated what work it would undertake. During the past month or six weeks, it has slipped into a groove and has undertaken more work than was achieved in the first couple of weeks when it debated what its remit should be. I am unsure whether we should define a new mode or just get down to work. If the Committee is content just to get down to work, I am content that the mode stay as it is. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are we agreed? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We must consider the minutes of the meeting of 6 October. Are members agreed on the contents of the draft minutes? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There is also the matter of the Secretary of State’s letter. As we have largely dealt with that already, we shall return to the arrangements for the institutions and the future work programme. A table of the work plan has been handed out. The work plan represents the Committee Clerk’s best guess as to the issues arising from the St Andrews Agreement and the work that needs to be carried out by the Committee on the Preparation for Government. The agreement in its entirety may be dealt with in other meetings or formats. Have members had time to peruse the work plan? Are there other issues that should be included? Mr Murphy: It is difficult to give a complete response to the plan, as members have just received it. Both Governments have produced a paper on the Preparation for Government Committee’s work on institutional issues; the parties have not yet signed up to that paper, as they wish to consult on it first. The work plan for that format of the Committee should reflect what is contained in the Governments’ paper. If we stray beyond the bounds of that, the documents on which parties are already consulting will change. If the Committee is to assist in those consultations, it is important that the work programme accurately reflects what is contained in those documents. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Perhaps I should clarify: the work plan is based on the St Andrews Agreement. There may be other issues in the agreement that members feel that the Preparation for Government Committee could deal with. Mr P Robinson: Can we be clear? Some members seem to have an imperfect understanding of the St Andrews Agreement. Paragraph 8 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement states that the Government will consider any further matters that the Committee discusses and supports for legislative purposes. It is not the case that if an issue is not mentioned in the St Andrews Agreement it cannot be discussed now. There is scope for other matters to be considered, if we can agree to do so. Mr Murphy: If I am reading the same agreement, it states that the Government will consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law. Members may wish to link that with institutional issues, and we have never refused to discuss any aspect of such issues. It will take some weeks for parties to consult on the St Andrews Agreement, and introducing new issues would create confusion when devising a work programme. I would be happier if the work programme reflected the contents of the current document. Mr McFarland: The Committee worked hard all summer and identified all the issues that members felt needed to be resolved before we return to Government. Some matters were resolved; others were parked for further discussion in Scotland. If the issues that were parked are contained in annex A, that is fair enough. However, it is worth checking whether any issues that the Committee had agreed should be dealt with fell between the stools amid the furore of drafting and redrafting in Scotland. It would be a pity if matters that parties felt were vital to effective and efficient government were dropped simply because they had not been addressed in Scotland. I suggest that the Committee revisits the areas that were parked — perhaps the team of officials have already done so — to confirm that none of the key issues that the Committee identified as requiring resolution in Scotland has fallen between the stools and not made it into annex A. 4.45 pm Mr P Robinson: I wish to make it clear that the reason that some matters do not appear in the St Andrews Agreement is not because parties forgot about them in Scotland — they may well have raised them — but because it is not their paper. The parties did not write that paper and, therefore, it does not address all the issues that they raised. The two Governments produced that paper, and just because they have left out an issue does not mean that it is any less pressing for us. Mr McFarland: I was agreeing with that point. Clearly, there are issues that both this Committee and the two Governments have identified, but we should also deal with the areas that the Committee has identified, but which the two Governments have not. The Committee wanted those issues to be resolved, and perhaps it should now focus on them. Mr P Robinson: I am content with the proposal in those terms, but not in the terms that Mr McFarland previously set out, which suggested that some issues were not included in the agreement because people had somehow forgotten to raise them. The main issue that I will raise today was raised at St Andrews. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members content with the work programme at this stage? Mr P Robinson: There are other issues that the DUP believes should be discussed. A couple of issues will have to be faced by whoever is going to prepare legislation, so I will deal with those first. The first issue is the exclusion mechanism. That simply will not work because the exclusion of either of the two largest parties would result in gridlock — there would be no way of electing a new First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The requirement would be that any decision taken by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must ultimately have support in the Assembly. I am not sure that that would be the case. The exclusion of large parties would present problems. That is not a major issue, but we must ensure that there would be not be gridlock should a major party be excluded. I am not quite sure how the matter of the nomination of a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister will end up on 24 November, but there is an assumption that the individuals identified as First Minister and Deputy First Minister on 24 November will be the same on 26 March, and that the two main parties will remain the same. That may not be the case. The last opinion poll that I saw showed that the gap between the Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP was widening and that the DUP was maintaining its strength. That poll also showed that the SDLP had overtaken Sinn Féin and that the Alliance Party — it will be glad to hear — had some additional support. Traditionally, Sinn Féin fares better in elections than in opinion polls, so that may not be an issue. However, it is conceivable, at least in theory, that in an election the DUP and Sinn Féin may not emerge as the two largest parties from the two separate designations. We are still not quite clear about the procedure for the identification of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on 24 November, but a situation could arise whereby the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister identified on that date would not reflect the results of any election held before 26 March. I am simply raising issues that must be taken into account. The Pledge of Office has been referred to, but there was a further pledge that my party considered important. We all come from very different backgrounds and there has been a very long period of division within our community. It is important that we have a pledge that shows that the first duty of members of an Executive is to consider the interests of the people of Northern Ireland — a type of “Northern Ireland first” pledge. We can discuss the terms of a future pledge at a later stage. However, we need to indicate that we have a common purpose, and I do not think that that is reflected in the existing Pledge of Office. One further matter, which my party has raised consistently and which I have raised in this Committee, is that of the permanent or otherwise mandatory coalition. My party recognises — and I have stated this in the Assembly — that that sort of arrangement can be justified in emergency circumstances. However, none of us should consider that this system should survive for all time. There has to be scope for evolution towards a more democratic process of governing Northern Ireland. That is not reflected in anything that I have seen thus far. We cannot allow that to go unchallenged. Those are our key issues. The issue of sanctions still stands. We all come with a lack of trust in the intentions and goodwill of others. We all look over our shoulders in these circumstances. All of us harbour suspicions that others will breach the terms of any agreement that is reached. We need to know, in terms more specific than the Government have laid out thus far, what will happen if people default. Those terms must inspire confidence rather than admit doubts about the future. People must know that if things go wrong, there is a process to ensure stability in the Province. Mr McFarland: I worry that we may become confused. The Committee had an evolving system whereby members tackled issues together. We had common experience of those issues. Everyone knew what the issues were because we had discussed them ad nauseam, we had parked them and they are all logged in Hansard. Peter has revisited some of those issues and the arguments around them are fairly well known. However, other arguments are new, and, with certain aspects, Peter has taken new angles. In order for everyone to have a clear take on them, and before we take decisions on them, we must tease them out and test them to be clear about what the proposals are and how they will work. The Secretary of State has provided a paper on the Pledge of Office. Where is the Committee with this? He referred the paper to us today. Will it be dealt with in due course, or down the line, or are we expected to deal with it as a priority? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Secretary of State has not contacted the Committee about that paper. He merely issued a press statement. At no time – and not at the earlier meeting – were we told either that the meeting would not happen or that the issue of the Pledge of Office had been referred to the Committee. Mr McFarland: Peter raised the issue of the Pledge of Office. Perhaps those who were in discussion about it today could enlighten the rest of us on what progress has been made. There are perhaps solutions to that problem. As those who were in the first Assembly know, transitional arrangements for a Pledge of Office are set out at paragraph 35 in the original agreement, and, in Hansard, it is shown that, at the time, the First Minister Designate and the Deputy First Minister Designate took a transitional Pledge of Office when the Assembly sat in Castle Buildings. I have copies of Hansard here for those who want to see that. There is form on this issue. If there is a requirement for the Pledge of Office to be taken before 24 November, a template is available that may get us over that hurdle. Can the Committee be updated on all that? It has caused a furore all morning. Dr Farren: Since its inception, the practice in the Committee on the Preparation for Government has been for parties to be at liberty to raise any issues of concern. I thought that the four outstanding issues that require urgent resolution, and to which we have frequently referred, are those at page 6 of the completed Report on Institutional Issues. However, a range of other issues has been thrown into the debate. It is good to go round the table and hear the issues that parties think need to be resolved, but if we continue with that exercise, where will we be with respect to the four issues that were identified as requiring clear resolution? The Pledge of Office has emerged as an issue on which resolution is required, and there was general agreement — at one stage — that it be amended to include a clause on upholding the rule of law. As far as I know, that is as much agreement as was reached on that issue. I seek clarification from the parties, including the SDLP, on their position on the issues that go beyond those on which resolution was originally sought. There is the potential for at least some of those to be resolved as a result of what emerged from St Andrews, but others remain to be addressed. It seems that we are drawing up a new agenda, and I doubt that we will be able to address those issues satisfactorily in the time available to us. Mr Murphy: I share some of Seán’s concerns. There is a time factor relating to 31 October and the legislative amendments, and I assume that that will be the first area of work to which we will direct ourselves. Although it is useful to list the issues that are ahead of us, we should concentrate more on a detailed or time-factored programme of work that specifies the issues that must be dealt with within a particular time frame. If the Committee on the Preparation for Government wants, at least, to try to seek some form of consensus on some of those issues and to relay it to whoever is drafting the legislation, Sinn Féin will attempt to do that with consideration for the time frame allocated. Failure to do that could result in our getting into circular discussions that might introduce new elements or angles to previous discussions. If members want to try to achieve consensus on issues that will amend the legislation, they have until 31 October to do so. Therefore, discussions on some of the other issues should be delayed until beyond that date. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Alan asked about the outcome of the discussions on the Pledge of Office. Can anyone clarify what was said? Mr P Robinson: What is the significance of 31 October? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Secretary of State has given 31 October as the date by which parties must make any representations to him on changes to the institutions. That is contained in the letter from the Secretary of State dated 13 October 2006. Mr McFarland would like clarification on what was said in earlier discussions about the Pledge of Office. Mr P Robinson: There is an issue there. The St Andrews Agreement was not explicit or well defined in some areas, and we must be clear as to what the language means. We are past the days of constructive ambiguity; there must be certainty. That will do away with any confusion over what something means, and we will avoid a collision down the line over what some parties understand and the information that others think that they have been given. I do not blame any party round this table for that misunderstanding. My gripe on this issue is with the Government. The position, as we understand it, is that there must be movement on a number of issues within defined periods of time. We need delivery on those issues, and we will not go back on the commitments that we have made. We are seeking a period of time in which to clarify with the Government the meaning of some of the terminology in the St Andrews Agreement and to have a clear understanding that everyone else has made the same interpretation. We do not want there to be any sleight of hand; we want to be sure that everyone is reading from the same sheet of paper. 5.00 pm Mr Murphy: The obvious way to avoid communication difficulties is to cut out the middleman. With all due respect to the NIO, if it relays understandings between us, it could put its own slant on certain things. Sinn Féin has always been prepared to discuss all these issues. We are quite satisfied with what has come out of the discussions at St Andrews in relation to a Pledge of Office. We are also satisfied that the commitment to exclusively peaceful means, and all other terms in the Pledge of Office contained in the Good Friday Agreement, are quite sufficient. However, the most direct way to resolve problems with parties understanding what each other says is through direct, face-to-face dialogue, rather than relying on people in the NIO to communicate between us. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The other issue is at what stage the Pledge of Office is required to be taken, whether on 24 November or in March? Mr P Robinson: That is an issue. It will depend on the nature of the event that will take place on 24 November, and we are not clear on that. Mrs Long: We are in danger of getting into substantive discussion on one issue — in this instance raised by the DUP — contained in the work plan. Clearly, there are a number of issues that must be addressed. Rather than deal with that substantive point in great detail, it would be better to check that all parties feel that the work plan covers their issues as well. We are supposed to consider not only issues discussed by the Preparation for Government Committee before its reports were produced, but issues arising from the St Andrews Agreement. Moreover, members may wish to add other issues to the work plan. If we can agree the work plan, we can get down to substantive discussion on issues such as the Pledge of Office, its wording and when it will be taken. Mr McFarland: Chairman, let us remind ourselves: the Committee produced views that required resolution, and colleagues have already said that the St Andrews Agreement is between the two Governments. I suggest that we try to resolve the outstanding issues in the Committee’s report. If those issues happen to coincide with those arising from the St Andrews Agreement, that will be great; if they do not, we will, at least, have dealt with the issues that we have identified as requiring further consideration before we fire up Government again. Mrs Long: The Secretary of State’s direction stated that one task of this Committee is to discuss the changes in the institutions detailed in annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. There is no question that we can simply go back to discussing previous issues. The principle has been accepted that part of the direction is to discuss the issues in the St Andrews Agreement. A circular argument will get us nowhere. Members will wish to raise those issues anyway, and, as Seán Farren said, the custom has been that if members want to raise issues, they can do so. Mr McFarland: Chairman, with the best will in the world, I understood that all parties around this table — except, perhaps, the Alliance Party — agreed to consult their members before beginning discussions on these issues. I presume that the Alliance Party intends to do the same. For us to come here and discuss — Mrs Long: On what basis did you exclude us from your initial statement, Alan? Mr McFarland: You are trying to discuss these matters now, ahead of the parties discussing them with their colleagues. Mrs Long: No, we are simply saying that if members wish to place issues on the agenda, they should be allowed to do so. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Members should address their comments through the Chair. Mr McFarland: My point is that we would like to have discussions with our colleagues and take them through the issues before the Preparation for Government Committee begins detailed discussions on the St Andrews Agreement. It is a chicken-and-egg situation, and it must be dealt with. Mr Ford: The timing of that is impossible, given that this Committee is expected to finish its work by 31 October, and parties are expected to respond to the Secretary of State by 10 November. The logic is that the parties come to the Committee to seek to clarify, modify or amend the St Andrews Agreement. They can then recommend to their members how they propose to deal with the St Andrews Agreement in order to be able to respond to the Government 10 days later. I cannot see how parties could do the detailed work internally at first and then come back to the Committee to discuss it seriously. Mr P Robinson: We could analyse that one to death instead of dealing with the issues. What Naomi said seems sensible: there are clear institutional issues to discuss arising from the St Andrews Agreement. There is no prohibition on parties getting agreement on other issues. I have no difficulty with anybody raising an issue and indicating whether I agree. That allows us to determine internally, and allows the Secretary of State to see from our deliberations, the measure of support that there is for other propositions. At this stage, we do not want to have day-long debates on any issue; we want to have some assessment of the amount of support that there is for a variety of issues — inside and outside of the St Andrews Agreement. Dr Farren: We are trying to come up with a work plan but not doing it very effectively. We have our own agreements and disagreements arising out of the work done up to the time that this report was compiled. We have now the various annexes, particularly annex A, of the St Andrews Agreement. Can we not take annex A, for example, and work through it and, insofar as we can, relate it to our own agreements and disagreements? It should not be too difficult to cross-reference, and, in a sense, that will lead to some kind of an outcome — the levels of agreement or disagreement with respect to what St Andrews proposes. That should help us to form the basis of any report that would go to the Secretary of State; it will also inform our discussions with our own parties, and, therefore, the response that the parties will make separately. However, we must have a work plan. The bones of it are there in the matrix that has been provided. It seems to me that annex A, taken together with our own report, should enable us to get through most of the issues. If parties want to add to all that that implies, they are, of course, free to raise issues that they consider important. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we want to break up into the three groupings that we had before? Do we want to have a separate meeting on policing and justice, for example? The parties could then bring in the members who deal with that issue. Dr Farren: It may be helpful to do so. Mr O’Dowd: I suggest that we take the work plan away. The parties received the St Andrews Agreement late on Friday evening. They returned over the weekend and now they are dealing with it through their party structures. Each party has its own mechanisms to go through; therefore, I would prefer that the document is taken away and that we reconvene this meeting as soon as is possible. That will allow the parties to give a more comprehensive response to the way forward and to the role that this Committee will play in that. I am concerned that the parties are being asked to report back by 31 October or 10 November through the Preparation for Government Committee instead of going through the channels to the two Governments. I suggest that we take the report away and come back in a number of days. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Some of the institutional issues have been agreed without the mechanisms being put in place. Those can be moved fairly quickly without major controversy. There are some issues on which the parties will have to consult further. If we do as we did in the past and deal with the issues that can be dealt with, set aside the ones that require further discussion and come back to them later, we can start to make conclusions. We do not want long reports or reams of documents; we want to reach conclusions in the shortest time possible. Apart from the work in this Committee, the parties have other work to do with regard to the consultation. We can do something like John has suggested and set aside the next meeting to deal with preparation for Government and the issues that have been highlighted by the Committee Clerks. If members want to add further issues, as Peter has done, the Committee Clerks will take account of those, and we shall deal with those matters at the next meeting. Is that a way forward? Members indicated assent. Mr Ford: I have one other point to make, Chairman. The St Andrews Agreement is not the entire show. We are aware of various other promises that have been made and of letters and documents that have been circulated to some parties and not to others. If this Committee is to have a comprehensive discussion, it is essential, in order to know from where we are starting, that we ask the Government for copies of all the additional papers that were circulated to one or more of the parties over the past few days. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): OK, members, hoke through your pockets. Mr Ford: My suggestion was that the Committee specifically request the additional papers from the Secretary of State. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members agree that that would be a useful discussion ? Members indicated assent. Mr P Robinson: Yes, that would be useful. Dr Farren: Peter would like to see the side deals that we have made. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Can we set a date for the next meeting of the Committee on the Preparation for Government? How regularly does the Committee wish to meet, and how soon? Mr O’Dowd: If, at the next meeting, parties were to be allowed to examine the workload ahead of them, they could decide how often they wish for the Committee to meet. Today is Tuesday, so parties may wish to meet to examine the workload this Friday or next Monday, whichever suits. Dr Farren: Friday morning would suit. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are working to a fairly tight schedule. Do you suggest that we meet on Friday morning, Dr Farren? Dr Farren: We should not go beyond this week. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are parties agreed that we shall meet on Friday morning? Mr P Robinson: I have a breakfast meeting on Friday morning, so as long as the Committee meets later in the morning, I do not mind. Dr Farren: To allow you to have your breakfast. Mr McFarland: Is 10.00 am too early? Mr P Robinson: Yes, that would be too early. Dr Farren: That is a long breakfast. Mr P Robinson: Part of the consultation process involves speaking to people. Mr O’Dowd: Friday morning may cause problems for some of our delegates. Would it be possible to meet on Friday afternoon? Mrs Long: Friday afternoon would be better for me. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members agreed that we shall meet at 2.00 pm on Friday afternoon? Members indicated assent. Dr Farren: What issues shall we be dealing with on Friday? Would it be possible to have advance notice of the agenda? Otherwise, we run the risk of — The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I suggest that, at least initially, we go through the work plan. Parties may wish to set aside some issues in that plan. If we could get through the first page on Friday, that would at least be a start. The Committee Clerks will cross-reference the work plan with our report to determine the issues that will require further consultation. Mr McFarland: For those who wish to refresh themselves with the interim Pledge of Office for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, it is contained in a Hansard report from 1998. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Thank you. The meeting is closed. Adjourned at 5.13 pm. |