COMMITTEE ON THE Wednesday 25 October 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.09 am. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): Good morning. Members should ensure that all mobile phones are switched off. Today’s meeting will continue until 4 pm, and we will break for lunch as usual at 12.20 pm. I will go through the roll to determine who is attending. Mr P Robinson: Edwin Poots and I are attending in place of Lord Morrow and Dr William McCrea. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you expect a third representative to arrive? Mr P Robinson: We are always open to surprises. Mr McFarland: Danny Kennedy is due shortly. Unfortunately, I have to go to another meeting, but I return before lunch. Mr McNarry is representing himself. Mr McCarthy: I am here in place of Naomi Long. David Ford will be here shortly, but I have to leave at 11.30 am. Dr Farren: I am here as myself. Mrs Hanna: I think that I am here in place of the party leader, Mark Durkan. Mr A Maginness: I am here in place of Alasdair McDonnell. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I welcome you, Carmel. I understand that this is your first meeting of the Committee. You must have done something wrong over the past few weeks to have this inflicted on you. Mrs Hanna: Thank you very much. You are right; I must have done something wrong. Mr Murphy: I am here as myself, and John O’Dowd is here to replace Martin McGuinness. Caitríona Ruane will possibly arrive later. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It was agreed that representatives from the NIO could observe the Committee’s proceedings, and two gentlemen from the NIO are here. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) has also requested an opportunity to observe the meeting, and a lady from that office is waiting for our decision. Do members have any views on that? Mr O’Dowd: It is getting crowded in here. Mr McCarthy: Bring her in. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Staff from OFMDFM will be working on any legislation that we suggest, so they may find it useful to pick up the nuances of what we are trying to say. Is everyone happy enough? Dr Farren: Is there any risk that the observers’ benches will be full? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will have a problem with accommodation — meetings of this Committee are becoming the hottest ticket in town. The minutes of the meeting of 23 October will now be distributed. It may be useful for members to read the minutes, and particularly the way in which each party’s views have been recorded. We did not reach consensus very often at the previous meeting, which is why we have had to adopt a new mechanism. It is also important to ask whether the minutes are an accurate reflection of each party’s decisions. Mr P Robinson: Edwin and I cannot answer that, as neither of us was present at the previous meeting. I am sure that our representatives, being sensible people, made the right decision. Dr Farren: I wonder whether that is what they told Mr Robinson. Mr P Robinson: I have total trust in them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Of those who were here — Mr McFarland: The second paragraph of item 5 of the draft minutes says that we supported the proposal that paragraphs 2 and 3 of annex A of the St Andrews Agreement be enshrined in statute. However, that is not the case. The SDLP and my party objected, and I thought that the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin did not vote at all. Mr McCarthy: We were relaxed about it. Mr McFarland: Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party used the word “relaxed”. My party and the SDLP said that the Alliance Party should not be relaxed, and the DUP said that it should. Therefore, the information in that paragraph is not necessarily correct. In respect of paragraph 3 of item 5 of the draft minutes, the Alliance Party can speak for itself, but I thought that it and Sinn Féin were relaxed about that matter also. The draft minutes state that the Alliance Party and the DUP supported the proposal. 10.15 am My next question concerns Hansard. The Hansard report is fairly critical. Members spend all day in the Chamber, and the report of that day’s plenary is available the following morning. Members can then read what was said during the previous day’s debates. Given that the work of this Committee is fairly critical, I do not understand why Hansard reports cannot be ready one day after our meetings. If the reports can be made available for plenary sessions, what is the difficulty in them being available for meetings of this Committee? Given that all parties — one of which does not appear in the Chamber at all — attend meetings of this Committee, one could argue that, at the minute, this Committee’s work is more important than plenary debates. If the Hansard report were available the day after Committee meetings, the problem of knowing who voted, and how they voted, would be solved. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I understand that the Hansard report of Monday’s meeting will be available today. Mr McFarland: I understand that. However, the Hansard report is made available the morning after a plenary debate, and Members who were in the Chamber on that day can read who said what. The work of this Committee is fairly critical. The Committee’s previous meeting was on Monday — 48 hours ago — and if the Hansard report of that meeting were available, potential difficulties could be solved. In my view, the minutes are not correct, and the Hansard report would show that. Without Hansard, we are all trying to remember which vote we are talking about and who said what and when. Dr Farren: That is why we should delay approving the minutes until tomorrow. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a reasonable point. Members are committing themselves without being clear as to what exactly was decided. To make certain that there are no difficulties, at the end of each vote today we will check exactly what members believe that they have voted for or against, or what they are content with. The Business Committee’s procedure on voting is quite good. For the Speaker’s benefit, the Deputy Clerk summarises how each person voted at the end of each vote. Members who are members of the Business Committee will have seen that procedure in action and will know that it works quite well. We will make certain that members leave the room today being very clear about the decisions that have been made. Therefore, as a result of those valid concerns, we will not make any decision on the minutes. The next item on the agenda is matters arising. It was agreed that we would remind the Northern Ireland Office that we requested copies of the various additional papers that have been circulated to one or more parties during and since the discussions at St Andrews. We have not yet received anything from the Northern Ireland Office — Mr Ford: Have we not received even an acknowledgement? That is not in keeping with the NIO’s customary efficiency. The Chairman (Mr Wells): A deluge of documents has not come our way; in fact, we have not received anything. However, we can ask, but that will not guarantee that the papers will be forthcoming. Mr Ford: Given that the NIO has given us an extremely tight deadline to work to, could we request that it at least gives us the courtesy of a reply? I have no great faith that it will answer our request in the affirmative, but it would be helpful if we could at least have a negative response. That would establish that we all know where we stand. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Representatives from the NIO are here, busily writing as we speak, so no doubt they will convey that message. Mr Ford: I am not sure whether they are necessarily writing a reply to give to you before the conclusion of this morning’s session. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I would be surprised if we got all the documentation that we have asked for. Mr Ford: Oh ye of little faith, as Danny Kennedy would say in these circumstances. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am just reminding members that that instruction has been complied with. Members will recall that it was decided at the first meeting of this Committee that if parties wished to include any issues for discussion that were not listed in the various agenda, their suggestions should be with us by 24 October, which was yesterday. As yet, no party has submitted any documents to the Clerks. Mr P Robinson: Is that on additional matters for discussion? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr P Robinson: I raised additional matters, so I presume they are on the list. I know that Sinn Féin gets ultra-sensitive when this issue is raised, but we should face up to potential breaches of the terms of any agreement or any default of legislative requirements. The Government made general comments on that in paragraph 11 of the St Andrews Agreement, along the lines that they will make sure that those parties — and not others — are punished. We should face up to the issue and see if there is a way through it. It is not an easy issue to resolve; however, we would be failing in our duty if we did not consider the matters that might come under the heading of “sanction”, to use a shorthand term, although that might not be appreciated by everybody. Whether or not we get agreement, we should talk around the issue to find out where everybody stands and what might be possible. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is an opportunity to raise that in today’s discussions. Having checked the Hansard report, Mr Robinson, you clearly outlined several issues that you felt should be included. We were expecting a formal note to ask that those issues be pursued. That note would need to be submitted today, so there is still an opportunity. Mr P Robinson: I am telling you. You can take a formal note — The Chairman (Mr Wells): We reached a decision that parties would submit papers on that today. Mr P Robinson: And, as always, they can do so if they wish. I have told you what the issues are, and you can take them or not. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will take those issues at the appropriate time in the discussion. Does anyone else want to come in on that issue? Mr Ford: I assumed that the issues mentioned in the work plan drafted by Committee staff did not need to be mentioned, as they would inevitably arise during the discussions. As we seem to have enough pieces of paper floating around from everywhere but the NIO, I thought that we could be spared a few more. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Hansard report of the meeting on Monday 23 October will be available at lunch time today, so there may be an opportunity to agree the minutes of that meeting later. There are issues in Preparation for Government Committee reports that are not covered by the St Andrews Agreement; many of them are non-controversial. Alan, in particular, has regularly raised these matters, but unfortunately he is not here. This is very much his hobby horse. Do we want to discuss these issues in his absence or come back to them later? Mr P Robinson: Not if Alan will raise those issues when he returns; we will have to go over the same territory again. Mr Kennedy: It might be helpful to defer that discussion until the afternoon session. I am available until early afternoon. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members happy to wait until Alan gets back? Mr P Robinson: I think that we can contain ourselves. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We come now to the main part of the meeting, which is the discussion on paragraphs 6 to 15 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. At the previous meeting, the discussion was thrown open, and we did not ask any one party to take the lead or for a brief introduction from each party. Paragraph 6 of annex A deals with “Assembly referrals for Executive review”. We need to consider whether the proposals for such referrals contained in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 need to be amended. Who would like to lead off on that issue? Mr Murphy: I will kick off, as nobody else will. We do not support this mechanism. There is already a mechanism in the Good Friday Agreement for a petition of concern, whereby a matter is brought before the Assembly for a vote. Any 30 Members can sign a petition of concern, which requires that a cross-community vote be taken on any issue that has not already been specified as requiring a cross-community vote. It seems that the purpose of this proposal is simply to delay a ministerial decision for up to two weeks. It puts added pressure on the Speaker make a decision. The protocol adopted by the previous Assembly was that, if 30 Members signed a petition of concern, the Speaker would consider that to be evidence that a matter was serious enough. It is quite possible that that procedure would be adopted again if such a mechanism were agreed and put into legislation. The proposal in paragraph 6 makes clear that only matters covered by the ministerial code would require a collective decision by the Executive, and those matters are already agreed under the terms of the code. Some members think that the proposal gives the Assembly some additional ability to overturn ministerial decisions, but it would not. Under the current constitution of the Assembly, only one party has more than 30 Members. The Assembly would therefore leave itself open to a process whereby Members can try to frustrate or mess about with ministerial decisions and cause delays for two weeks. Basically, Members could make nuisances of themselves. That is not a requirement. There is a provision for securing cross-community voting on any issue that is brought before the Assembly. The proposal in paragraph 6 will not interfere with matters that are not already covered by the ministerial code — it will not make them subject to a ministerial or a collective decision, unless that is so required by the ministerial code. Therefore, the only purpose of this proposal is to delay ministerial decisions. The Assembly can call a debate and air its views on any decision taken by a Minister. This proposal will merely serve to delay a ministerial decision; it is just a messing mechanism that has been included at the request of one party with the ability to exercise that mechanism when it sees fit. Mr P Robinson: That is a bit of an elitist view — almost a military view, one might say: the officer class knows best, and the serfs below can never see something that the officer class might not see. The proposal in paragraph 6 of annex A is effectively a democratic control where Assembly Members are given a role. Surely any Executive worthy of their salt would not be embarrassed at the possibility that a Member might refer an issue back to them. I hope that the mechanism would be used very occasionally, if at all, but it is a safety net. It gives the Assembly the ability to democratically send back a matter to the Executive should something get through the system that concerns Members. It gives the Assembly to ability to tell the Executive that they may have missed something and that an issue should be reconsidered. The proposal does not seem to be an unreasonable provision, and it is certainly not a delaying mechanism. Why would any Member insert a proposal simply for the purpose of simply delaying a decision if that Member would be part of the Government that would be delayed by that proposal? It is a nonsense. This mechanism is a safety net that would be used very sparingly in the appropriate circumstances — in other words, when it becomes absolutely essential and when Members feel that an issue has slipped through the Executive’s net. There is no reason to get excited or worried about this matter. The mechanism would have to be used in that context, and as rarely as possible. Mr Kennedy: We will not go to the stake on this issue. The measure would presumably be available on a cross-party basis, so that any 30 Members could express their concerns about an issue. We will not object to it. Dr Farren: Far be it from us to think that any party would dare to abuse such a mechanism were it to be enshrined in law. I have made the distinction several times between matters provided for in Standing Orders and those in the ministerial code itself. Obviously, this provision would not be provided for in the ministerial code, although a Minister who ignored a referral by 30 Members — or any significant number, be that fewer than 30 — would do so at his or her peril. However, enshrining matters in law goes beyond what is really necessary, which is the distinction that the SDLP has made. What happens during periods of recess? What happens to decisions that may have to be taken urgently in the interim? Would those decisions stand? Of course, the overriding consequence of enshrining matters in law is that people outside the Assembly can interfere, through the law, in essentially political matters. They have the right to seek judicial review of decisions, of course. However, this goes beyond what the judicial review process adequately provides for. My party sees no reason why the suggestions made here need to be legally underwritten. 10.30 am Mr Ford: There seem to be two possible interpretations of this. The Sinn Féin interpretation is that it is a recipe for delay, which would be taken advantage of by those who would wish to mess about. The DUP interpretation is that it provides an opportunity for the legislature to ask the Executive to look again at issues. My party would like to see much more collectivity in the Executive than we have seen previously or are likely to see. We believe that there are significant advantages in enabling the Assembly to ask the Executive to look at matters on a collective basis. If the Executive have in fact considered matters on a collective basis, no party would seek to mess about, because Members would merely be trying, as Back-Benchers, to overturn decisions endorsed by their party leadership within the Executive. On the other hand, where the Executive have not taken as full a view as they might have done, it is not unreasonable that the Assembly should have the opportunity, if only on an occasional basis, to ask for matters to be reconsidered. Clearly there are problems around the timing, which Seán Farren has highlighted. A ministerial decision taken in the last week before the summer recess would not be considered until about two and a half months later. Nonetheless, the fundamental principle is that this is one way of underpinning collectivity. While, unlike Danny, I certainly would not die in a ditch for the precise form of wording that is there, the principle is of merit and we ought to retain it in some form. Mr P Robinson: Members are getting themselves excited needlessly. If anyone’s purpose is to delay, the ability to do so exists within the Executive. This mechanism is not needed to create delay; it only makes sense as a safety net for us all. Should some measure get through or be passed without us all being aware of it, this allows for referral. Delay is not an issue here. I assume that Members have read the qualifications that are set out here to ensure that the mechanism is not used in a vexatious way. In the sort of instance that David raised, the Speaker would have some control. In those circumstances he or she would be acutely aware and particularly sensitive. Mr Murphy: Members have had their say, and we are unlikely to convince one another of our opposing views. With respect to the Speaker’s filtering role, the practice in the last Assembly was that, where 30 Members signed a petition of concern, that became an issue of importance, and the Speaker was obliged to follow through. The DUP had petitions of concern that were active for practically the entire existence of the last Assembly. There may be mechanisms for discussion within the Executive, but in Sinn Féin’s view, and given the practice of the DUP in the last Assembly, this proposal is about Back-Benchers having their bite at decisions made by Ministers of other parties — probably Sinn Féin, in particular — whose decisions they dislike by virtue of the identities of the people taking them. As to the point that the Assembly should be able to express its democratic view on issues, the Assembly has the ability to debate any decision that a Minister takes. The Minister is obliged to attend and explain himself or herself, and the Assembly can have its say. I am not confident that this mechanism would be used sparingly, given the experience of the last Assembly and the regular use of the petition of concern mechanism by the DUP and other anti-agreement elements. Dr Farren: I ask the DUP: if there were a provision in the ministerial code that required the Executive to respond to a petition organised by a significant number of Members of the Assembly, why would it be necessary to have that requirement enshrined in law? Would it not be foolish of an Executive to ignore a petition of concern raised in that manner and brought to their attention by as many as 15 or 20 Members, as I said earlier? Would there not be pressure on the Executive due to the composition of the 15 Members who expressed concern? If those 15 Members were from a single party, their party colleague on the Executive would say that his colleagues were on his back and that they must do something to address the issue. Why enshrine the requirement in law and risk facing some of the consequences that I attempted to summarise earlier? Mr P Robinson: That is fairly obvious. Lawmakers do not assume that Governments will always act sensibly, logically or accurately. I have two things to say. First, in relation to what happened last time round, if the DUP has the desire to wreck a new Assembly, it will wreck it; it certainly does not need this mechanism to do so. If the largest party decides to wreck an Assembly, I assure you that it will be wrecked. If the agreement on which we are negotiating — and which is capable of getting the support of all the major parties and, I hope, all of the Members — is not capable of working and functioning, nothing will. So the Preparation for Government Committee must look at the legislation that we are putting forward on the basis of its being supported and accepted as a way forward. Secondly, there is an issue about the automatic delays that are brought about when 30 Members sign a petition of concern and a matter has to be returned to the Executive regardless of the Speaker’s wishes. The example cited is what happened in the last Assembly when the legislation did not give the Speaker any discretion on the issue. If 30 Members signed a petition of concern, a delay was automatic. Under this draft provision, it is clear that the Speaker does have the discretion. That distinction is being used to ensure that the provision would not be used in a vexatious way. However, we are clearly not going to get consensus. Mr Murphy: If the largest party on either side wants to wreck the Assembly, it can do so. However, if the largest party on one side intends to go into the Executive having shown to its members and its support-base that it can call to heel other parties present, this is a device through which it can publicly show or give evidence that at least it has the ability to call Ministers back and, if nothing else, delay decisions for two weeks. That is the DUP’s intent. If the DUP wanted to wreck a future Assembly, they could do so. However, if its members wanted to show that they could regularly pull all the Ministers in to review their decisions, this device would allow it to do so. In one sense the draft provision enables the DUP to say that the new Assembly is a different animal from the previous Assembly, one in which Ministers can be pulled in at the same time as operating in a functioning Executive. That is Sinn Féin’s objection. Mr P Robinson: We are going round in circles again, but I must respond to that. Any provision that is put down can be used by any 30 Members. If one party decided to abuse the provision merely to flex its own muscles and to force Ministers to toe the line, it will probably have more Ministers to be pulled into line than any other party. Why would anybody go down that road? It is a nonsense. A difficulty in any new organisation is that people will examine the new rules and look at how they can be abused. However, the new rules provide a safety net. The ability of Members to call an Executive to account is a democratic requirement that, in any other democratic chamber, would be the norm. Due to the peculiar system prevailing here, there is a view that there is an elite Executive, that no one should say anything to them and that they should be given free rein to do whatever they want. Members must be given a role. Parties must trust their MLAs. I trust the Members of my party, and I am sad that some parties are worried about their whipping arrangements. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I detect that we will not reach consensus on the proposal relating to paragraph 6 of annex A. Bearing in mind the points that were raised this morning, we must double-check people’s views. Unless I am terribly wrong, Sinn Féin is opposed. Mr Murphy: Absolutely. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The SDLP is also opposed. The Alliance Party — Mr Ford: The Alliance Party broadly supports the principle, subject to qualifications, as Hansard will record. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What about the Ulster Unionists? Mr Kennedy: The UUP is “in abstentia”, as it were. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What is the DUP’s position? Mr P Robinson: We are not sitting on the fence; we are in favour of democracy. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members seem content that we have given the issue as much of an airing as we can. Although there is no doubt on this occasion as to the parties’ positions, I suggest that the Clerk reads them out, just to be clear. The Committee Clerk: Sinn Féin opposes, the SDLP opposes, the Alliance Party broadly agrees with qualifications, the UUP abstains, and the DUP is for the amendment proposed in paragraph 6 of annex A. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members have unanimously agreed to disagree. We move on to paragraph 7. Paragraphs 7 and 8 both deal with the Pledge of Office. I am in the hands of members as to whether to take those separately or combine them into one topic for discussion. I have no strong views and merely want to know what members feel is the best way forward. Are there any thoughts on that? There would be two separate decision-making stages, but we could discuss them jointly. I propose that we take the two together and wait to hear if there is any dissension. Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 7 states that: “Reflecting the Pledge of Office, Ministers would be required to act in accordance with any relevant decisions of the Executive and the Assembly.” Are there any thoughts on that proposal? Mr P Robinson: It is a fairly straightforward provision that simply brings in section 52(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 dealing with the North/South and east/west structures, which states that: “a Minister or junior Minister shall act in accordance with any decisions of the Assembly or Executive Committee which are relevant”. Paragraph 7 expands that to its logical conclusion. There is no issue with that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If there is no issue with paragraph 7, we can move on to discuss paragraph 8. Does anyone have strong feelings on paragraph 7? Dr Farren: Yes. I will take the second part of paragraph 7 first. The Committee must carefully consider what is meant by binding Ministers to what are described as “relevant decisions” of the Assembly. Does it mean that Ministers would be bound by motions put before the Assembly, such as one that proposed to give everyone a free lunch on a Monday and would perhaps require the Minister for Social Development to ensure that it was implemented? What are we talking about? I am afraid that I cannot see a Government in any part of the world operating under that kind of provision. Mr P Robinson: Are you serious? That is what Governments in every part of the world do. They are all subject to the will of their parliamentary assemblies. Dr Farren: On budgetary matters and on matters where there is — Mr P Robinson: On every matter. That is democracy. Dr Farren: Come on, Peter. Be serious. Are you seriously suggesting that the early-day motions passed in the House of Commons are binding? Mr P Robinson: Early-day motions are not passed. They are simply put on the agenda — 10.45 am Dr Farren: Those motions that came before the Assembly offering people this, that and the other, with no regard for budgetary considerations, are not the kind that you could possibly bind Ministers to exercise their responsibility to implement. Mr P Robinson: The member is talking about the irresponsibility of parties that grandstand and pretend that they are interested in certain subjects, knowing that such legislation cannot be enacted. The discipline of having the final say on such matters is a requirement of any parliamentary Assembly. There is nothing unusual about that. It is the role of every Parliament, and it will be up to the SDLP and the DUP to ensure that when Members are tabling, or voting on, motions, the party whipping systems are such that Members do not make requests that the Executive cannot deliver. That is democracy. Dr Farren: I see the issue quite differently, because I can detect provision for irresponsibility of which parties could take advantage. Therefore, I do not see why we should enshrine that kind of provision in law. The Chairman (Mr Wells): To clarify, are you referring to the “Executive and/or the Assembly”, as stated in paragraph 7 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement? Dr Farren: I said that I was speaking to the second part of the proposal. Mr P Robinson: Therefore, although this elite group would be capable of binding anybody, the plebs in the Assembly would not be trusted at all. Is that what the member is getting at? Dr Farren: Sorry? Mr P Robinson: I am saying that the member seems to be taking the elitist view that the Executive can do no wrong and that they alone are to be trusted and relied on, but that the Assembly should have no democratic controls over them. Dr Farren: No, not at all. As I do not want this discussion to develop into a two-way conversation, I will defer to Mr Murphy. Mr Murphy: The provision that is set out in paragraph 7 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement is similar to and more in line with the Pledge of Office in annex A to strand one of the Good Friday Agreement, which obliges Members: “to act in accordance with, all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly;”. The Pledge of Office in the St Andrews Agreement obliges Members: “to act in accordance with any relevant decisions.” If a Member were to table a madcap motion, a provision in the St Andrews Agreement allows for either one side or the other — or both — to collect 30 signatures and invoke a petition of concern. I do not have a difficulty with that: it reflects the provision that exists in the Good Friday Agreement. It might qualify as slightly more appropriate, in that the relevance of decisions will be dependent on the sort of decisions that require collective decision-making under the ministerial code. Therefore, I do not have a difficulty with that provision. The Chairman (Mr Wells): May I check whether that applies to both the Assembly and the Executive? Mr Murphy: Annex A to strand one of the Good Friday Agreement refers to both: “all decisions of the Executive Committee and the Assembly.” The Chairman (Mr Wells): We may have to split the vote, because I think that while Seán is perfectly happy with the Executive, he is not happy with the Assembly. Mr P Robinson: Seán is against the Belfast Agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Seán, I am not 100% certain, are you against the Executive, the Assembly, or both? Dr Farren: Sorry? The Chairman (Mr Wells): In other words, paragraph 7 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement states that: “Ministers would be required to act in accordance with any relevant decisions of the Executive and/or Assembly.” Is the member saying that he is happy to act in accordance with Executive decisions but not Assembly decisions? Dr Farren: I am happy with Executive decisions, but I am raising questions about the nature of decisions in the Assembly. Mr Ford: Not surprisingly, in its efforts to enhance collectivity, the Alliance Party believes that all motions should be bound by Executive decisions. The Assembly’s problem lies in deciding which decisions are relevant. Given the looseness with which no-day-named motions were debated in the past, it would be a problem if Ministers were to feel constrained by decisions taken by a small number of Members late in the afternoon. However, the party Whips need to ensure that those decisions do not happen in that way. I presume that a relevant decision is taken — Mr P Robinson: Decisions that are relevant to each Minister’s Department, if that is what paragraph 7 means. Mr Ford: If that is all that it means, it becomes a rather interesting issue for the Whips of Executive parties. Speaking as someone whose party is not likely to be in the Executive as it is in its current form, it is no bad thing to keep them on their toes. Mr Kennedy: I largely agree with Mr Ford, which will worry everybody — [Laughter]. Mr Ford: Especially David Ford. Mr Kennedy: The emphasis on the word “relevant” is important and should be outlined in proper detail. During the previous Assembly, there were opportunities late on some afternoons to create a Santa’s wish list, and we all experienced that. Parties might find it problematical to address that issue in any relevant way. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Before we move on to participation in the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) and the British-Irish Council (BIC), do members have any other points to make on that aspect of the Pledge of Office? Similar arguments will no doubt apply to our discussion on the NSMC and BIC, but we can come back to those when we progress to voting. Paragraph 8 of annex A of the St Andrews Agreement states that the Pledge of Office: “would require that Ministers would participate fully in the Executive and NSMC/BIC, and would observe the joint nature of the office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister.” What do members feel about that? Mr Murphy: Sinn Féin supports that recommendation. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does the DUP support that? Mr P Robinson: We feel that it is unnecessary. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Ulster Unionist Party? Mr Murphy: They are unnecessary as well. Mr Kennedy: The UUP will give its own view, if that is all right. Mr Murphy: I am talking about the party, not its view. Mr Kennedy: We shall see. The rule of law is important and needs to be incorporated into the Pledge of Office. If that happens, the UUP will be content. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Four parties are content. Will the DUP expand on its view that the provisions of paragraph 8 are unnecessary? Mr P Robinson: The Pledge of Office itself will require Ministers to participate fully in the Executive — the law will ensure that. I recall that the North/South matter came to the courts, and a determination was made that there could not be an avoidance — as the First Minister sought — of such responsibilities. I am not getting excited about this at all. If there is an agreement that the Democratic Unionist Party can endorse, it will play a full part in all its working arrangements. From the DUP’s point of view, those provisions are unnecessary because we will already be fulfilling them. That is effectively why I am saying that those provisions are unnecessary. We will not support an agreement, if an agreement is eventually supported, only to be unprepared to work it in all its aspects. Mr Kennedy: In the UUP’s view, it is critical that we have some discussion on the final sentence in paragraph 8 of annex A, which states: “Before the Government legislates on the pledge of office it will consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law.” I do not think that there have yet been sufficient discussions to nail down the issue of the rule of law. It would be important to at least engage in those discussions and see where that is taking us or how it is going to be dealt with in the Committee. There was a brief discussion of policing and law issues on Monday, but no timetable or conclusion was reached on how the Committee would deal with it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The difficulty, Danny, as you know, is that we are under a very tight deadline of the end of this month, and if we are going to have those discussions, we are going to have to have them today. Mr Kennedy: We are prepared for that, but — The Chairman (Mr Wells): It seems a shock to the system to have to sit down now and deal with these issues without prior warning, but we must. Mr Kennedy: Gird your loins. Mr Poots: Chairman, the re-establishment of any Executive will hinge on this issue. We can talk about everything else, but the rule of law is the one issue on which the Assembly will either stand or fall. Mr McNarry: The UUP has raised the issue because of its singular importance. Would it be helpful to have a timetable? From the unionist perspective, I think that it would be very helpful. Unionists are beginning to understand the mechanisms that Sinn Féin requires to give it the cover that it needs on giving its support to the police. However, this issue is important now, particularly given the wording. Does Sinn Féin agree that it would be helpful to unionists in particular if timescales were given from which the public could at least determine or deduce good faith and good intentions? There is no timescale, and it would be very helpful if Sinn Féin could give one; it would be very constructive to this discussion. Mr Murphy: First, to correct David’s impression, we are not looking for mechanisms to give us cover. There is a timescale to take a decision in relation to these matters. There are matters to be resolved in the interim, and they are not resolved yet. The timescale set out in the St Andrews Agreement is that the restoration of the institutions must happen by 26 March 2007. I am not responsible for either bringing a proposition to our ardchomhairle or having the ardchomhairle decide whether and when an Ard-Fheis is called. That is the process that needs to take place, because the party decides democratically whether to go with this. The timescales are set out in the St Andrews Agreement; both Governments are aiming towards 26 March 2007. Mr McNarry: I am grateful; my choice of word was “cover”, but the Member’s choice is better if it is going to lead to a decision. It is precisely on that point that it is imperative that there be a decision. However, the timescale clearly cannot point to the date that the Member said, otherwise we can wrap this up because we cannot really go any further with it and it should be held in abeyance, which is not in the spirit of things as I understand them. All I can do at this stage is to impress on the Member that there is a genuine need to know what Sinn Fein’s timescale is. It would be very useful to the process if that were forthcoming. I can only ask and make that point to the Member to perhaps reflect on what he has just said and see if there could be an improved timescale or a more open and transparent timescale that would not complicate matters for Sinn Féin or its structures or procedures but would help this process. Mr Murphy: I am not sure where the confusion lies, because that is the timescale that people are working to. I hope that it can be achieved. There are matters to be progressed, and there are matters in relation to certainty as to where we are going with all of this that will become clearer by the end of November. 11.00 am The member talks about an air of expectation or understanding. We had an understanding that we were to have a Programme for Government Committee meeting last week. We certainly hope that meeting can take place soon. There is a timescale to resolve these issues, and there is a clear understanding about what needs to happen. Our party has a democratic process that we must go through; I cannot take a decision that will pre-empt that. I am not responsible for the mechanics of working that out either. That is the broad time frame in which we are working, and our intention is to succeed within that time frame. Mr McNarry: I appreciate that, Chairman. The issue has been raised because it is important from the unionist perspective and, with all due respect, previous assurances from Sinn Féin have not been worth anything to unionists. Mr Murphy: The member can seek an assurance from me now. Mr McNarry: If the member can give me an assurance now, fine. If not, could he reflect on the assurance and come back to me? Mr Murphy: That is contradictory. If an assurance is not worth anything, why is the member seeking one? The assurance will be when this process is concluded. Mr McNarry: I said “previous assurances”. Mr Murphy: I assure the member that Sinn Féin will deal with assurances as best as it possibly can, and we intend to get a positive outcome. That is my assurance. Mr McNarry: All that we need is a timescale; that would be helpful. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next members to speak are Seán Farren and Edwin Poots. Dr Farren: I am not sure where this discussion is taking us in relation to the matters before us. Either we pledge ourselves to upholding policing and the rule of law — or the rule of law however it is phrased — when the Executive is formed or we do not. Mr McNarry: It is a bit too late then, Seán. Dr Farren: There will hardly be an Executive if issues in respect of supporting policing and the rule of law are reneged upon. That is outside the current remit of this Committee. Interesting as it may be to get precise dates for when agreement will happen, we are, I assume, talking about the Pledge of Office. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are not talking about the timetable; we are talking about the content. Dr Farren: We are talking about the content of the Pledge of Office. Members will recall the previous discussions on the Pledge of Office during our meetings in the summer. It was generally agreed, without any dissent, that wording would be found for the Pledge of Office that would commit Ministers to upholding the rule of law. All that we are trying to do is to formally agree that such wording should be incorporated into the Pledge of Office. Do I now hear disagreement to that commitment? The Pledge of Office will be taken in the future; it will be taken tomorrow. Mr Kennedy: My original point is that part of paragraph 8 of annex A that states: “Before the Government legislates on the pledge of office it will consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law.” We have not had those discussions, and, however difficult it is, we need to have those discussions because it is the elephant in the room. Mr Poots: As regards where Sinn Féin is currently coming from and the timescale to which it is operating, I can see that it will create a difficulty for itself with timetabling. A nomination process for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister designate will take place before 26 March 2007, as set out in the St Andrew’s Agreement. That nomination process will consider the Pledge of Office. Sinn Féin will not, I assume, want to leave its nominee without the support of the party. That indicates that Sinn Féin will not nominate a Deputy First Minister designate prior to that date but will let the situation run on to 24 or 26 March 2007, therefore leaving its nominee in considerable difficulty. Mr P Robinson: There are a couple of points that I genuinely do not understand about this. Sinn Féin must take a decision before 10 November to indicate its acceptance of the principles of the St Andrews Agreement. That of itself is a decision to accept paragraph 6 of that agreement on support for the police. Either the body that takes that decision has authority to give that approval, or it has not; if it has, surely that same level of authority must allow a Member who is designated to be a Minister to take a pledge to the very same effect that he or she would have accepted in order to pass the test before 10 November. That is the issue that I have difficulty with. The matter for unionists is this: we recognise that many people in this room do not trust us, and those people recognise that we do not trust them. On that basis, there must be some certainty about each step that is taken in any process. The core of the St Andrews Agreement was the “twin pillars”, as the Secretary of State described them. The first is the Democratic Unionist Party’s acceptance of power-sharing; the second is Sinn Féin’s support for policing, the courts and the rule of law. Therefore, the essential element is that nobody moves ahead in the process. For instance, Ian Paisley cannot be expected to give his endorsement to his end of the agreement and hope that somewhere down the line — and nobody can timetable this for us at present — the Ard-Fheis will meet and consider its part of the agreement. Dr Paisley would be a fool if he were to do that. Those decisions must be brought along together. Unless we have an answer to Danny’s question about the timetable for the decision-making process within Sinn Féin, we cannot really timetable or co-ordinate what will happen on 24 November. It is not that the DUP is being difficult; it is a case of ensuring that everything is in place when it is supposed to be, and that one person is not ahead of the field. Mr Murphy: I anticipate that the Sinn Féin ardchomhairle will be in a position to respond — as it was asked to — by 10 November. A decision on policing requires the support of the party, which is the Ard-Fheis. I am not responsible for logistics. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Could you explain the difference between those two? Mr Murphy: The ardchomhairle is the party executive, which is a group of about 50 people; the Ard-Fheis is the entire membership of the party. I appreciate that there are other sizeable parties here, but Sinn Féin stretches from here to Kerry, and calling the party together is quite a significant undertaking. I anticipate that the ardchomhairle will be in a position to respond to the St Andrews document by 10 November. An Ard-Fheis is necessary to take the decision on policing; it is the only body that can take that decision in a democratic party. Mr P Robinson: The decision on policing is contained in the St Andrews Agreement. Is Mr Murphy saying, therefore, that the ardchomhairle will take a decision to proceed before 10 November and notify the Government of its intent, but will not give approval to the section on policing in the St Andrews Agreement? Mr Murphy: I am saying that the ardchomhairle will be in a position to respond to the St Andrews document, and that is what is required of it. If Mr Robinson was not clear about the way that it would pan out — and it appears from the DUP’s non-attendance at the Programme for Government meeting that his party is not clear —whatever understandings that the DUP had from the British Government obviously did not follow through for it. Sinn Féin has always been clear. The big difficulty is that although we are having this discussion through the Chair, the DUP would probably have a much clearer position on how Sinn Féin processes these matters if it had direct discussions with Sinn Féin, rather than relying on the British Government to give their interpretation of what Sinn Féin intends to do, and us relying on the British Government for their interpretation of what the DUP intends to do. Mr Kennedy: If press reports are to be believed — and they are not always to be believed — Mr Murphy is showing an attractive modesty this morning. Mr Murphy, along with Martin Ferris and Mary Lou McDonald, has been appointed by the ardchomhairle to conduct the consultation. It would be very helpful if he could tell us, modesty aside, when he expects the consultation exercise to report and in what detail, unless that is a closed area to the rest of us. Mr Murphy: We will conduct an exhaustive consultation covering the island’s 32 counties. I anticipate that the ardchomhairle will respond to the document by 10 November. Consultation will go on beyond that, but, initially, it is to allow the ardchomhairle to make its response. Those who attend the ardchomhairle are mandated by various sections of the party. Mr Kennedy: Presumably, the ardchomairle will say whether it is prepared to recommend the calling of an Ard-Fheis. Mr Murphy: I cannot pre-empt what the ardchomhairle will say; it is like the Ulster Unionist Council in that respect. Mr Kennedy: I cannot pre-empt what the Ulster Unionist Council will say either. Mr Murphy: The ardchomhairle will be in a position to respond by 10 November. Mr McNarry: We still have our block booking of the Ulster Hall; if you need a slot, I am sure that we can oblige. Mr P Robinson: The Democratic Unionist Party is clear about the processes. Let no one be in any doubt: what is required is in the St Andrews Agreement, which was set out by the Government. Paragraph 10 of the St Andrews Agreement states that parties need to confirm their acceptance of the implementation of the agreement by 10 November. That acceptance will include paragraph 6 of the agreement, which calls for the full endorsement of the criminal justice system and of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. How can the ardchomhairle confirm its acceptance of the agreement, but only the Ard-Fheis can make any change to Sinn Féin’s stance on policing? Should we discount what is said before 10 November? Mr Murphy: Let me draw Peter’s attention to annex D, which is the “Timetable for Implementation of the St Andrews Agreement”. The first paragraph asks parties to respond by 10 November. The DUP has already scuppered the Programme for Government Committee meeting on 17 October, at which parties were to be represented at leadership level. The DUP is clear that the agreement that was reached at St Andrews is that of the two Governments, and I presume that the DUP intends to respond to the agreement by 10 November, as do we. Lest anyone be in any doubt, we intend to make all the elements of the St Andrews Agreement work; we are not attempting to resile from any element of it. It is a pity that the Programme for Government Committee did not meet last week; party leaders sitting around the same table, talking about working on a Programme for Government would have sent a powerful signal. We intend to make the St Andrews Agreement work; if others want to poke through the entrails, I will respond to them where I can. However, Sinn Féin’s response requires decision-making in the party, and I cannot pre-empt such decisions. Mr P Robinson: This issue is not subject to anything in the ether or in the bottom drawer of party leaders; it is in the St Andrews Agreement. Annex D is simply a timetable for the ease of lazy journalists. Paragraph 10 of the agreement is very clear: what is needed is acceptance of the agreement, not a response to it, so that we can move to the next step. Acceptance must include the terms of the agreement. How can one accept the St Andrews Agreement as the basis for moving forward if one is not prepared to accept paragraph 6? If Sinn Féin does not accept paragraph 6 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement before 10 November, everything will move months down the road until the Ard-Fheis makes that decision. I accept that parties have their own procedures — some more awkward than others — and some parties take longer than others to convene. I am not quibbling about whether extra weeks or months are required. I am merely saying that no one party should be asked to jump before another. Everyone must be certain that they are heading in the same direction and that the timetable ensures that the decision makers determine with certainty that they take the decisions that matter so that we can move to the next stage. 11.15 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am conscious that the SDLP and the Alliance Party have not been heavily involved in this debate. Do they wish to contribute? Dr Farren: In order not to repeat what I said a moment ago, we are discussing the Pledge of Office and I understand that a response must be given by 10 November of the parties’ intention to honour and accept all the commitments in the St Andrews Agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I have given parties some latitude, because the NIO will reflect on the discussions. However, Dr Farren is correct: we are discussing the content of the Pledge of Office, not timetables, conferences or the Ard-Fheis. Dr Farren: Presumably the NIO will reflect not only on the Pledge of Office, but on everything else in the St Andrews Agreement. If we muster our collective wisdom on this issue, can we say that we accept that the wording in the Pledge of Office should contain something along the lines of that which we assented to during our discussions about upholding the rule of law? Am I mistaken, or is that the main issue concerning the Pledge of Office? The Chairman (Mr Wells): In a previous report, the Committee on the Preparation for Government decided in principle that such wording would be included. Do members wish to get down to the nitty-gritty of devising a Pledge of Office or suggesting the wording for it, or do they simply wish to continue with the view that support for policing and the criminal justice system should be included in it? Mr P Robinson: If the Pledge of Office is to be accepted, it must be consistent with the terms laid down in the St Andrews Agreement. I do not think that Members will want less or more in the Pledge of Office, but it must be consistent. The St Andrews Agreement is not a legal document; therefore, it must be drafted and put into the appropriate language. That is the weight that people would expect to be attached to it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members content with the phraseology that the Pledge of Office must be consistent, rather than going any further and tying down the exact wording of it? It is a useful proposal, but are members content with it? Mr Murphy: No, members are not content with it. We are being asked whether we agree with the contents of paragraph 8 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. We are not being asked whether we agree to a discussion that has not happened: we are being asked to agree with the clauses concerning attendance at meetings and the joint nature of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. We are broadly in favour of that. However, other issues concerning further elements of a Pledge of Office, such as law and order, putting Northern Ireland first, or other issues that are exercising the DUP, need to be discussed. We are not content to prescribe those issues before they are properly discussed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is more than that, because paragraph 8 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement states that HM Government: “consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law.” Mr Murphy: Let us have those discussions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is what we are doing. Mr Murphy: I have seen no proposition to recommend wording about policing matters and the rule of law for inclusion in a Pledge of Office; if there were, I might reach a conclusion on it. If members want to set aside time to develop that discussion, that is fair enough. However, today we are to discuss paragraph 8 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement, which is specific on some areas of the Pledge of Office and less specific about any further discussions on other areas about which members feel exercised. Although time should be set aside to draw some conclusions on the Pledge of Office, I have seen nothing so far that leads me to any particular conclusion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The difficulty is timetabling. The Committee must have this issue tied down by 31 October. Time is just not on our side. However, I agree that we must deal with the Pledge of Office. Mr Murphy: Of course we can discuss the Pledge of Office. The British Government are facilitating discussions on what the parties would like included in an amended Pledge of Office. We can have a parallel discussion in this Committee if we want to, but, as far as I am aware, Peter Hain has been exercising himself in this matter for the past number of days. If members think that discussions in this Committee can contribute to the Government’s process, that is well and good, and I am willing to take part. However, bearing in mind that there are other issues to be dealt with, if our discussions would merely lead us down a lengthy sidetrack, we should move on. Mr O’Dowd: It is also worth remembering, Chairman, that the deadline to which the parties are working is 10 November. The Committee’s end date of 31 October may have been set for a while, but 10 November is the closing date for party consultation. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee had no choice in that date. Mr O’Dowd: The Committee does have a choice. The parties that are members of the Committee have a choice. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Secretary of State has advised that the Committee’s discussions must be completed by 31 October. Mr Murphy: If the parties reach any consensual views that are different to what is in the St Andrews Agreement, the Government will reflect that in their future plans. However, the Committee’s task is to discuss the content of the agreement to determine what level of consensus can be reached. I do not know whether we will achieve consensus on any additional elements that could be included in the Pledge of Office. If members want to, we can discuss that issue for a couple of days, but I do not know that we will reach consensus. Mr Ford: Like Seán Farren, I have listened while the decision-making structures and timetables of two or three parties were discussed. Now that we seem to have reached a point where we could discuss the potential issues that might be covered in the amended Pledge of Office, particularly support for the rule of law, we seem to be running away. Whatever discussions the Secretary of State may or may not hold, it would surely be more beneficial if the Committee could agree some broad principles for the amended Pledge of Office, even though I suspect that we would not agree its wording. If members want to get into that discussion, I have some suggestions that I would like to make, but it appears that Conor believes that we should not bother. Mr Murphy: My reservations are based on the Committee’s deadline of 31 October. My understanding is that if the Committee reaches any consensus on the matters in annex A to the St Andrews Agreement that is contrary to what is contained within it, the British Government will consider that when drafting the relevant legislation. I do not see the Committee reaching consensus on any of the Pledge of Office issues. We could have a lengthy discussion, but if we are to operate to the time frame that we agreed on Monday, the likelihood of reaching consensus is remote. Mr Ford: Paragraph 8 of annex A states that the Government: “will consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions.” On that basis, should this Committee not at least endeavour to reach consensus? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Quite a few members wish to speak. Mr Kennedy: From what Conor Murphy has said, it appears that the real action is taking place elsewhere, in meetings with the Secretary of State. That raises the question of what we are all doing here. Why are we wasting our time giving cover to those allegedly private meetings? We need to address the issues that have been indicated, and: “the Government will consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law”. The place for those discussions is here. However difficult a conversation it might be, the Ulster Unionist Party is happy to have those discussions in this Committee. I seriously object to any suggestion that the real action is happening in another place with the Secretary of State. Mr P Robinson: In the St Andrews Agreement, the Secretary of State has indicated that he will: “consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law.” We have had such a discussion, and it does not appear that we will get agreement. I simply want to state the view of my party that a Pledge of Office on policing and the rule of law must be consistent with paragraph 6 of the St Andrews Agreement, which requires Ministers to support policing and to encourage others to support policing, the courts and the rule of law. That is where we stand, and I hope that it is where everybody else will stand eventually. Dr Farren: Chairman, I am always puzzled by the extent to which other parties, particularly Sinn Féin, seem to prefer meeting the British Government directly rather than directly dealing with fellow Irish men and women around this table. It should not be beyond our wit to arrive at a general agreement to include a commitment to upholding the rule of law in the Pledge of Office. The details of what is meant by the rule of law are for a different debate. The Pledge of Office, as I understand it, is not to contain details but general commitments that Ministers make to the requirements of their office. I would have thought that we could agree the necessary language, given the general agreement that I thought that we had reached on this issue in the middle of August. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is in line with what Mr Robinson said. I am happy to take a separate proposal on the issue. We must get parties to make decisions on several matters. Equally, however, if a member or party wishes to make a proposal, I am more than happy to take it. I remind members of the issues on which we must take decisions: that Ministers be required to act in accordance with the relevant decisions of the Executive, accountability being split between the Executive and the Assembly; that Ministers be required to act in accordance with relevant decisions of the Assembly; that Ministers participate fully in the Executive, the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council; and that Ministers will observe the joint nature of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Annex A also states that the Pledge of Office should reflect the outcome of the Preparation for Government Committee’s discussions on policing and the rule of law. That is a very difficult issue, as we have not really reached agreement on those matters. Is it worth trying to get the first few issues out of the way and then return to policing? Dr Farren: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): First, paragraph 7 states: “Ministers would be required to act in accordance with any relevant decisions of the Executive”. What are the views of the five parties on that? Mr Murphy: The Good Friday Agreement already stipulates that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sinn Féin is therefore saying yes. The Alliance Party said yes. The SDLP — Dr Farren: The SDLP is very relaxed. Mr P Robinson: Loosen your tie, then. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that consensus? Mr P Robinson: The DUP said yes. [Laughter.] Mr Kennedy: We have reached a historic point — or is it hysterical? Dr Farren: We are happy to retain what is in annex A to strand one of the Good Friday Agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that a yes, Seán? Dr Farren: I try not to eat my words too often. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are taking that as consensus. Dr Farren: OK. Mr P Robinson: Bank it and rush on to the next issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): How does the Committee feel about the statement in paragraph 7 of the St Andrews Agreement that Ministers would be required to act in accordance with any relevant decisions of the Assembly? Mr P Robinson: I think that we all accept it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I think that Séan made a distinction between the two documents. Dr Farren: I did. If the member would care to go back to annex A of the Good Friday Agreement — Mr P Robinson: He is still hanging loose. Dr Farren: It is the bible that we are often accused of not wanting to see changed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus that Ministers would be required — Mr Kennedy: We will abstain from that. Are you referring to paragraph 7 of annex A? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr Kennedy: We will abstain from that — just to make it awkward for other members. Mr P Robinson: So much for parliamentary democracy. 11.30 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 8 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement states that: “Ministers would participate fully in the Executive and NSMC/BIC, and would observe the joint nature of the office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister”. What are members’ views on that? Mr P Robinson: I am as relaxed about is as Alban is. Dr Farren: We will accept it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What are Sinn Féin’s views? Mr Murphy: We support it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That means that there is consensus on that paragraph. Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That gets all of paragraph 7 and a portion of paragraph 8 out of the way. David had a suggestion, John had a view on it, and Peter had an idea as to how we could square this quite difficult circle. Members may wish to suggest a wording on those on which we can agree. At the minute, paragraph 8 merely states that the Pledge of Office should reflect the outcome of the Committee’s discussions on policing and the rule of law. Frankly, that is — Mr Murphy: That is someone’s proposition: it is not the wording that is actually in the annex. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is actually — Mr Murphy: Paragraph 8 says that the Government will: “consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law.” It does not say that the Pledge of Office should reflect the outcome of discussions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I do not really know what the problem is that we have to consider at the minute, because we have not really reached any sort of consensus or agreement on it. Mr Murphy: That is fair enough, but we need to be accurate in what we are saying about what the outcome of this process will be. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Obviously, the aim is to reach a common position on the matter; however, I do not think that that will happen. Dr Farren: Can we reflect on this point and come back to it later if a precise wording occurs to us? Mr P Robinson: I am a bit worried about making the precise wording an issue. No matter what we do, draftsmen will turn it into the language of a Bill. We are probably safer giving the general sense that it has to be consistent with — Dr Farren: Did we not already do that in the August debates? Mr P Robinson: Yes, except that the voting was not such that we clearly identified who was voting. Dr Farren: No dissent was expressed. Mr P Robinson: It was. Dr Farren: Was it? Mr P Robinson: I do not think that Sinn Féin signed up for policing and the rule of law at that stage. However, it may wish to do so today. Mr Murphy: I do not recall giving consent in August to any proposition on this matter. However, I am happy to discuss it and to try to find agreement on it. To correct what Seán said earlier, I do not have a preference for discussing and resolving this with the British Government. Other parties came here with the express purpose of merely scoping the issues and not negotiating on them. The Secretary of State has discussed that with parties. I would prefer it if the action were decided on by this Committee, but that is not the reality. We are quite happy to discuss those issues here, make propositions and take them back to our party to get its views. The only reason why I suggested moving on was that we have a tight timescale to work to, and I do not anticipate getting a consensus at this meeting on some wording that is to be contained in a Pledge of Office. Mr Poots: Can we scope out whether there is agreement on paragraphs 5 and 6? Mr Ford: Clearly, there are issues about the Pledge of Office. It was said earlier that it is one of the twin pillars around which the agreement will be advanced, if it is advanced at all. Given the sensitivities and the timetables of the parties in general, and Sinn Féin in particular, the question is whether we can agree that there are broad principles of what is likely to be appropriate for inclusion in the Pledge of Office, subject to all other matters being agreed satisfactorily. I do not know whether that would allow Sinn Féin members to make progress on the matter with the remaining Committee members. I would have thought that paragraph 6 of the main part of the agreement was a good point from which to start a discussion. The issue is whether members are prepared to discuss the possibility that that is a point at which that they will arrive in the future, even though they cannot commit to it today. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is similar to Mr Poots’ suggestion. Mr Ford: Yes, it is similar to what Edwin said. Dr Farren: Paragraph 82(e) of the Committee’s ‘Report on Institutional Issues’ says that: “It was agreed that … A requirement or commitment to uphold the rule of law.” What does that mean? There is a footnote: “Official Report 14 August 2006 paragraph 2464-2590.” The Chairman (Mr Wells): It actually says that it was agreed that “Further consideration be given” to that issue. It was one of the many issues that were parked in the huge multi-storey car park. Dr Farren: I appreciate that. However, in the context of that discussion, if there was no intention that we would commit ourselves to the rule of law then that should have been stated. Mr Murphy: It is quite a leap from saying that we shall have further discussion on a requirement to uphold the rule of law, to saying that that means that there should be a clause in the Pledge of Office. Sinn Féin has always been, and still is, prepared to discuss those issues. However, there is quite a leap from one discussion to the other. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there any merit in having a discussion of paragraphs 5 and 6 of annex A the St Andrews Agreement in order to agree or disagree on whether they represent the best way forward? Both the Alliance Party and Edwin — [Interruption.] Mr Poots: My colleague will have to resign. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That would indicate to me that someone’s mobile phone is switched on. Mr Kennedy: The Chairman is not a bit slow. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a capital offence in this Committee. Mr Poots: He is not upholding the rule of law. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are parties content that paragraphs 5 and 6 reflect their views on the issue? Several parties have indicated that they wish to tie down what various members feel about those paragraphs. Perhaps there could be consensus on that. Mr Murphy: Chairman, do you now want to leap from the agreed programme of work on clauses and go back into the document that represents the two Governments’ views of how they want matters to go forward? We agreed a work programme on Monday — and I appreciate that you were not in the Chair at that meeting. We specified the various clauses and paragraphs that we would deal with. We laid those out. If you want to change the course of the meeting and go back into the two Governments’ view of how matters should go forward and discuss that — “scope them out”, as I believe Edwin Poots suggested — that is fair enough. I am content to go along with that, but we must be clear about it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You would be entirely correct if it were not also included that the NIO and Her Majesty’s Government are going to consider our discussions on policing and the rule of law. That is why we are having the discussion. We are not just dealing with the mechanics. Mr Murphy: There is a format of this Committee that deals specifically with those matters. I am content for those matters to be discussed, whether by us or by the other format. However, when I read that, I assumed that it meant that there would be an attempt to pull together that format of the Committee to deal with other outstanding issues as well, including the time frame for transfer of powers; the model by which those powers would be transferred; and outstanding policing and justice issues. The Chairman (Mr Wells): In an ideal world, the matter would be referred to the policing and justice format of the Preparation for Government Committee. It would then go off and spend days discussing the matter. One problem with the date of 31 October is that the legislation must be drafted. We must give some indication to Government as to what is required. They need that by the end of October. We do not have the luxury of sending the matter off to our policing experts. There is obviously a reluctance to discuss the matter in detail. However, everyone agrees that it is a crucial issue. This is the only opportunity that we will have to discuss it before the end of the month. Mr Kennedy: Chairman, is it not perfectly possible for the format of the Preparation for Government Committee that deals with policing and justice issues to convene in advance of 31 October? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It would probably have to be this Friday. Mr P Robinson: Have I missed something? Sinn Féin has told us that it cannot take decisions on policing, courts and the rule of law unless certain structures inside the party have taken decisions. We can dance around that for as long as we like, but will it change anything? We can pull up Committees and Subgroups, but it will not change anything. My concern — and it is now a greater concern than when I came into the room — is that I am no longer sure what decision the Sinn Féin ardchomhairle is going to take before 10 November. If it is not a decision that endorses the St Andrews Agreement as the way forward and, therefore, acknowledges the police, why should the rest of us endorse it if that party is not going to? Mr O’Dowd: Mr Chairman, may I ask the DUP to tell us what decision its party executive is going to take before 10 November? Of course, it cannot tell us. They tell us that they are consulting with their party members. We are in consultation with our members, as are the UUP, the SDLP and the Alliance Party. The Secretary of State may have set a target of 31 October, but it is not in the St Andrews Agreement. If he wanted 31 October as a deadline, it should have been included. The DUP cannot tell us what decision its party executive is going to reach in relation to the St Andrews Agreement before 10 November. We cannot tell them what decision our party is going to reach before 10 November. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The point is this; if that is the case, is there any merit whatsoever in forming the policing and justice — Mr P Robinson: I have not been clearly understood, or made myself clear enough. The issue is not whether there is a decision to be taken today, or by the executives of Sinn Féin or the DUP — or the other parties, lest they think that they can stay out of this loop. Let us be very clear. We are not talking about the ability to take a decision before 10 November. It is whether the decision taken on 10 November by both parties is one that is going to include the terms of the St Andrews Agreement, those terms being the basis for moving forward. I have been told today that the only people who can take a decision in relation to policing are the Ard-Fheis. The indications are that the Ard-Fheis is not going to meet before 10 November, so how do we get a decision on the terms of the St Andrews Agreement if the Ard-Fheis is not going to meet, with it being the only occasion on which a decision on policing can be taken? That is what I am asking. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Perhaps it would be helpful, Mr Murphy, if you could give us a timetable, because there are dates — [Laughter.] Mr Murphy: Bring back Francie Molloy. Mr Kennedy: You will, you will, you will. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am not trying to get — Mr Murphy: I know you are not trying to do anything. Mr McNarry: You should have asked that question two hours ago. Mr Murphy: I am not involved in deciding what the logistics are. It was always clear that the Ard-Fheis would take the decisions in relation to our attitude to supporting policing arrangements. I anticipate that the ardchomhairle will be in a position — as is required under annex D — to respond to the propositions contained in the St Andrews Agreement by 10 November. That is how I see things panning out. We have undertaken a period of consultation, as have other parties, and we are trying to do that as speedily and as exhaustively as possible. That is the way forward within our party structures. Mr Poots: Where Mr O’Dowd appeared to be confused was that the rest of us will probably be in a position by 10 November to give a yea or nay. We are guessing that Sinn Féin can only give a qualified yea or nay, because the ardchomhairle may have met while the Ard-Fheis may not. To that extent, how strong is that? It comes back to the point that if we have a discussion on policing and the rule of law, and if certain matters are agreed and the Government proceeds with legislation, is Sinn Féin going to leave their nominee exposed on that date, when he or she is saying yes to policing before the Ard-Fheis has given its approval? Dr Farren: May I pose a question to Conor Murphy? Like everyone here present, I respect the stages through which a party has to go. Does that preclude Sinn Féin from saying now that a Pledge of Office taken in the future should contain a commitment to uphold the rule of law? At this stage, can it not say that a pledge would contain such a phrase? I fully appreciate and respect that there are certain decision-making processes to be gone through, but this is a pledge for the future, not for today. 11.45 pm The Pledge of Office should contain a commitment, among others, to uphold the rule of law. If a person cannot answer yes to that, the discussion not only on this issue but on many others is almost redundant. How can parties commit themselves to a Pledge of Office, a ministerial code or indeed anything that is enshrined in law, if they say that they have to go through their processes before they will make any kind of commitment? Debate could not take place until after those decisions had been made. Mr Murphy: Our party is considering these matters. It was proposed that the commitment to justice and the rule of law be considered further by this Committee, and that is reflected in the document. If, as Séan said, there is a proposal to include such a commitment in the Pledge of Office, Sinn Féin will consider it when it is made. Sinn Féin is considering how those commitments can be reflected. Mr McNarry: I have read annex D of the St Andrews Agreement, yet having heard what has been said this morning, I wonder whether the Government misunderstood, were mistaken or were misled about the significance of consulting the “Sinn Fein Ard Comhairle”. The significance of consulting the ardchomhairle is not being borne out by what we are hearing in the Committee, which is that the outcome will depend on the Ard-Fheis. The process in annex D is that the ardchomhairle will be consulted — there is no mention of an Ard-Fheis. If the Government misunderstood or misread the process — or were misled — then none of us has fully understood the ardchomhairle’s importance to the outcome. It is now the timetable of the Ard-Fheis that is desperately being sought. Can the Government do anything about this, given that annex D belongs to them? When one reads the annex, it seems that the ardchomhairle has to respond by 10 November. I do not want to be too inquisitive, but the question is pertinent: how will Sinn Féin respond through the ardchomhairle on 10 November other than by saying — and I hope that I am interpreting correctly what you said — that it has had its ardchomhairle and will be having its Ard-Fheis? Mr Murphy: That is a matter for the ardchomhairle. Some of your questions on understandings would be better posed to the British Government. For at least two or three years — certainly since 2004 — the process by which Sinn Féin would take a decision on policing matters has been clear: the ardchomhairle would agree to a suggestion from the party president and put a proposal to an Ard-Fheis. I do not know why confusion should arise now. People either read the St Andrews Agreement in Scotland or they did not. It reflects what we have been saying over the years: the ardchomhairle would convene an Ard-Fheis. Mr McNarry: I do not know what was said to lead the Government to insert in the St Andrews Agreement that the ardchomhairle would be responding by 10 November. Mr Murphy: Perhaps you should ask them. Mr McNarry: Sinn Féin might have said to the Government: “Hang on, this is not right”, and tabled an amendment to say that the process is different. The Chairman (Mr Wells): David, I would like to correct you. Mr Murphy: Mr McNarry would be better putting his questions to the Government, as I do not think that anyone who has been dealing with Sinn Féin during this process has been unclear about how our party would take a decision on this matter. The Chairman (Mr Wells): David, the wording is: “Ard Comhairle and other appropriate party bodies”. It is important when you are quoting that phrase that you quote it in its entirety. Mr McNarry: That could be interpreted. My party is not mentioned. Who do we consult? Do we consult through the DUP Assembly group or do we consult through the Sinn Féin ardchomhairle? Perhaps “other appropriate party bodies” could refer to my party, the SDLP and the Alliance Party, because we are “other appropriate party bodies”, and very significant ones. Mr Murphy: That is what I presume that means. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Ms Ruane has been waiting for quite a while to get in. Mr McNarry: Are we at least agreed on that? Mr Murphy: We agree that we have the same interpretation. You should perhaps ask the authors of the document. On coming out of St Andrews I heard all the parties — particularly the DUP — stress that this was the Governments’ document, and not theirs. Therefore, if there are questions of interpretation, either we speculate about the meaning or the British and the Irish Governments tell us their understanding, because they drafted it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Ms Ruane. Ms Ruane: You have my permission to use my first name. I know that you use it in other situations. Chairperson, Edwin raised a question, which I presume was meant seriously, or at least I shall take it seriously. Sinn Féin takes very seriously its consultation with its members all over this island, and we are going to great lengths to make sure that every single party member is part of that. We will not pre-empt the discussions. As John said, 10 November is the date to which we are operating. You need to respect our processes, as we respect your consultation with your community. Mr P Robinson: Let me make it clear. The DUP is going through a consultation process, and I suspect that all of the parties, if they have any sense, are doing the same. I recognise that some parties will take longer to do that than will others. That is why I am not fixated about any timetable that the Secretary of State might set. I want to ensure that whatever timetable is there will get the right decisions, with the right degree of consultation and understanding within the parties as to where we are going. I am not fixated about the timetable, and if timetables need to shift to take account of the realities of the situation, then so be it. I say again that this document is the product of the two Governments: it is not in the ownership of the DUP or any other political party. All political parties will have had their input to it. I certainly had never read it before I was handed it at the plenary session at St Andrews. I knew what some parts of it would contain, because we had been involved in negotiations on those. However, there were other elements that I had never seen before, and therefore the DUP is in no way bound by them. We are responding to the Governments’ document. That is why we have the difficulty: because the Governments’ understanding of various parties’ positions was either imperfect, or imperfectly translated into the agreement. In the last three quarters of an hour, we have seen the issues that led to the DUP’s saying, “Hold on a second. Let us not end up with what you did with the Belfast Agreement and its constructive ambiguity. Let everyone be absolutely certain where they stand on the issues. We will have no fuzziness about the matter: everyone needs to know exactly what is expected of them and what they intend to do.” It is in the interests of the process as a whole that everyone knows where they are going with it, and it is clear, and has become more clear today, that the authority will not be vested in Sinn Féin’s ardchomhairle to take the decision to give support to the police, as is required by the terms of the St Andrews Agreement. If that is the case, then clearly, before we can move to the next stage, some Sinn Féin body — I believe it is the Ard-Fheis — will have to give that authority. That is why the process is currently logjammed. I do not blame any of the parties around this table, because it is not their document, but to move forward we must ensure that one element, or one party, does not move ahead of the others. We must ensure that everyone is in a position to move forward, and if that means waiting for the Ard-Fheis to meet and take the decision, so be it. However, it is not beyond the organisational capability of Sinn Féin to call an Ard-Fheis. It is not that far down the road, from Kerry to wherever, to gather people together. Dr Farren: You have been there. Mr P Robinson: I have been to many parts of the Republic of Ireland, and I have been made very welcome wherever I go. [Laughter.] Mr Kennedy: You might want to think about that. Mr McNarry: Mr Wells was not very welcome in Dundalk. Mr P Robinson: I am confident that Sinn Féin could call a meeting of the Ard-Fheis even before 10 November, if it had the desire to do so. However, let us be clear that it is necessary to know with certainty everyone’s position in the process. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Danny, a last comment and then we need to draw this together. Mr Kennedy: It appears that parties that were directly involved in negotiations at St Andrews, either with Government or with each other, did not nail down issues, and, as a result, the agreement seems to be unravelling before our very eyes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have had a reasonable discussion. All that paragraph 8 of annex A asks us to do is to commit ourselves to agreeing that the Pledge of Office should reflect: “the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law.” The NIO, or Her Majesty’s Government, will note our discussions. Mr Poots: What is the outcome? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The outcome is that we have not reached agreement. That is quite clear. Mr McNarry: We are waiting to hear what the Kerry branch of the DUP has to say on this consultation. [Laughter.] Mr Poots: Chairman, I am not sure that we have not reached agreement. No objections have been raised to paragraphs 5 and 6 under “Policing and the rule of law”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am waiting for someone to propose something on which we might vote. Mr Murphy: Did Mr Poots say that we object to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the agreement? Are we all at the same meeting, Chairman? I asked whether we were entering into a discussion on paragraphs 5 and 6 of the agreement, contrary to the agreed work programme to discuss annex A issues, and you said that the discussion would take in a broad view of the entire agreement. We have neither objected to nor accepted any paragraphs in the main section of the St Andrews Agreement. Mr Poots: That is what I just said: I did not hear anybody object to paragraphs 5 or 6. Can we assume that there is consensus that paragraphs 5 and 6 be used as a template? Ms Ruane: Edwin, you obviously did not hear the answer to your question. Mr Murphy: If you put a proposal, we will tell you whether there is consensus. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Have you a proposal, Mr Poots? Mr Poots: I propose that paragraphs 5 and 6 be used as a template. The Chairman (Mr Wells): For the Pledge of Office? Mr Poots: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any comments on that proposal? Mr Murphy: There is no consensus on that proposal. We are content to discuss the issue, but we will not enter into any formula in advance of a proper conclusion to these discussions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do members wish to make any other comments? Mr Ford: Is Conor saying that Sinn Féin is not even prepared to consider paragraphs 5 and 6 of the agreement to be an appropriate starting point for such discussions? Mr Murphy: I am saying that, around this table, we have not reached an appropriate starting point. Until we arrive at one, I will not box my party in by accepting a particular formula. We have not even reached in Committee the point at which we can accept that such a commitment should form part of the Pledge of Office. A general proposal was made in August that we consider the matter further. We have moved from that to trying to find a text for a Pledge of Office before we have even managed to consider how that commitment would be expressed. Mr Ford: Some of us were trying to find some general principles for the Pledge of Office as opposed to drawing up the text of the Pledge of Office. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We do not have consensus on Mr Poots’s proposal. Do we want to vote on it in order to collect parties’ views on it? The DUP is obviously happy with its proposal. Do the Ulster Unionists support the proposal? Mr Kennedy: We would support it. Mr Ford: I am happy enough with it, if that is the consensus. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does the SDLP support the proposal? Dr Farren: We do not necessarily need to refer to the specific paragraphs. Our proposal would be that a Pledge of Office should contain a commitment to uphold the rule of law. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That proposal is along the same lines as Mr Poots’s but uses slightly different wording. Dr Farren: That is what I am saying on behalf of the SDLP. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We shall vote on Edwin’s proposal and then take a vote on the SDLP’s proposal. Mr Poots: All that I am saying is that paragraphs 5 and 6 of the agreement should be used as a starting point or template for the Pledge of Office. Mr Kennedy: Chairman, is it not a difficulty that the St Andrews Agreement is all duck or no dinner? Parties cannot cherry-pick it. The UUP has no objection at all. We would support paragraphs 5 and 6 being used as a template — The Chairman (Mr Wells): Danny, can we just go through the mechanics and gather the votes? Mr Kennedy: The difficulty is that if we begin to go down the line of taking further proposals, I am more attracted to Seán Farren’s proposal, which is more specific on the general principles. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I accept that, but once a proposal is made I am bound to collect views on it. If Seán’s is a separate proposal, we can discuss that after. Mr P Robinson: Can some of us agree that there should be a Pledge of Office that commits Ministers to support the police, the courts and the rule of law? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does that differ greatly from your proposal, Seán? Dr Farren: I would prefer the word “policing” rather than the term “the police”. Who are “the police”? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we wait a moment? Although I know what the view is, I must officially take the view of Sinn Féin on Edwin Poots’s initial proposal. 12.00 noon Mr Murphy: We agreed in August that there should be further discussion about how such a commitment would be expressed. We are now at the stage where, before we have even agreed Seán’s proposition that such a commitment should be a matter for the Pledge of Office, we are starting to narrow down the discussion on what the basis of such a Pledge of Office should be. It is putting the cart before the horse. The Chairman (Mr Wells): So you are against the proposal? Mr Murphy: Well — The Chairman (Mr Wells): I take it, Seán, that you are against this proposal but wish to make another proposal. Dr Farren: I wish to make a separate proposal. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have collected the votes. The Clerk will reiterate the parties’ positions. The Committee Clerk: The DUP, the UUP and the Alliance Party said yes. Sinn Féin and the SDLP said no. Dr Farren: The SDLP is abstaining; we are not saying no. Mr Kennedy: Relaxed. Mr P Robinson: Is Sinn Féin saying no or abstaining? Mr Murphy: Sinn Féin is saying no to paragraphs 5 and 6 as the basis of something, when we have not even agreed how a commitment should be carried forward and we are being asked to agree the basis for that particular proposition. Mr Kennedy: Whither St Andrews now? Mr P Robinson: That would be a reason to abstain and not to — The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sinn Féin is saying no, and it has been logged as such. There is not a huge degree of difference between Seán’s proposal and Peter’s; however, we will take them separately. Mr P Robinson: My proposal is consistent with Edwin’s. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will deal only with Seán’s proposal. The proposal is that the Pledge of Office should contain a commitment to uphold the rule of law. Mr McNarry: Did you not mention policing? Dr Farren: No, I was commenting on what Peter said. My proposal is that the Pledge of Office should contain a commitment to uphold the rule of law. That is a statement of principle, not the precise wording that may find its way into the Pledge of Office to reflect that commitment. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is pretty clear what Seán is getting at. Can we collect votes on that proposal? What is the DUP’s position? Mr P Robinson: The proposal is not sufficient. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that a no or an abstention? Mr P Robinson: I am not against a pledge to uphold the rule of law in the Pledge of Office, but we also want clearly identified support for the police and the courts to be included, as does the St Andrews Agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that an abstention or a no? Mr P Robinson: It is not enough, is what it is. The Secretary of State is eager to find out the Committee’s comments. That is the Democratic Unionist Party’s comment. Mr Ford: Is that a no dressed up as a yes or a yes dressed up as a no, Peter? Mr P Robinson: It is part of the issue, so it is partly a yes, but it is not sufficient. Mr Poots: The discussion was on policing and the rule of law, so Seán has got one of those. Dr Farren: The phrase “rule of law” is a fairly general concept that embraces policing, the courts and the rule of law. How far do we go in spelling out each concept in the Pledge of Office? I do not see the distinctions between policing and the courts, and the rule of law. Mr Kennedy: We share the concerns of others that the proposal is not comprehensive enough. While we can support that element of it, we are not completely satisfied that it would deal comprehensively with the issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is very similar to the DUP’s comment. Dr Farren: We may get there eventually. Mr Ford: Seán has acknowledged that the wording of his proposal will not be the final wording of the Pledge of Office. However, I am quite happy to endorse it as a statement of principle. Mr McNarry: He has not. Mr Kennedy: As long as HM Government do not think that it is the final wording. Mr Ford: Neither Seán nor the only member who supports his proposal thinks that the proposal will be the final wording. As neither he nor I think that it is a full statement, but merely a statement of general principle, presumably the Government will get the message. Mr McNarry: Could you say “including policing”? Dr Farren: Then you would have to say “including, including, including”, and so on. Mr P Robinson: The PSNI and the RUC GC — Dr Farren: The harbour police and the airport police. The Chairman (Mr Wells): After this proposal, Mr McNarry, you can put forward your own proposal and beef it up accordingly. Mr P Robinson: — and the B Specials. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): The SDLP will, of course, say yes to Seán’s proposal. What about Sinn Féin? Mr Murphy: Pending the conclusion of the discussion, we abstain on this proposition. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We do not have consensus. Let us read the votes. The Committee Clerk: The SDLP said yes; Sinn Féin abstained; the Alliance Party endorsed it as a statement of principle; the DUP felt that it was not sufficient; and the UUP believed that it was not comprehensive enough. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Having reached that stage, the only way forward is for another party to make a proposal. Otherwise, we must accept that the NIO will take note of the Hansard report of our discussion and come to its own conclusions. If there are no other proposals, we will move on to discuss paragraph 9 of annex A, which deals with the appointment of Ministers in the Executive. We must consider the content of the paragraph and decide whether the Northern Ireland Act 1998 needs to be amended to reflect our views. Who wishes to lead the discussion on paragraph 9? Mr Ford: I will, if no one else wants to. Although the Alliance Party does not believe that the joint election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister actually guaranteed any joint action by the two Ministers when in office, we have grave concerns about any proposal to remove such elements of joint operation as applied in 1998 and simply hand nominations over to party nominating officers. Mr Murphy: From the discussions at St Andrews, I understand that a number of parties support this proposition. I have a number of questions. Sinn Féin’s position is that the election process for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should remain as it was under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. Several questions arise from the proposition in paragraph 9 of annex A. Under the previous arrangements, any Member could have been nominated as First Minister, with the success of the nomination depending on whether the Member secured sufficient support within the Assembly. It was not specified from which party or designation the Member had to come, merely that they must have the support of the majority of both designations and a majority of the Assembly as a whole. Under this proposal, it appears that the only Member who can ever secure the nomination for First Minister would be from the largest party in the largest designation. That poses some questions. There may well a degree of settling down, particularly within the unionist designation, but at one stage in the previous Assembly there were seven different unionist parties, some of which were clearly larger than others. Theoretically, if those numbers had been spread fairly evenly throughout the unionist designation, under this proposal a party within the second designation that was larger than any within the unionist designation would not have been entitled to nominate someone for the post of First Minister. The nomination could only come from the largest designation, regardless of the particular party make-up in that designation. This proposition does not take account of party size at all; it takes account only of designation. Some may argue that, in order to secure the support of both designations, such a proposition could be the outcome. However, allowing Members to decide who they want as First Minister and Deputy First Minister is different from enshrining in legislation that the First Minister must for evermore come from a certain designation and that the Deputy First Minister must for evermore come from another designation. Those are questions for those who support this proposition. Is it a de facto recognition that, regardless of party size in any particular designation, the First Minister must always come from the largest designation in the Assembly? Mr P Robinson: I am getting a bit weary of this issue; we have discussed it half a dozen times in past meetings of this Committee. I doubt that anybody will have changed views, nor do I expect that they will do so on hearing me again today. I am not one of those who believe that a mandatory system is the best thing for Northern Ireland, but it seems to be the only system with which we can proceed at this time because it is the only one on which there is sufficient consensus. One cannot say that we must have a mandatory system and then suggest that we insert a voluntary mechanism into it. A voluntary mechanism will not work unless it is based on having in Government those with whom one is voluntarily prepared to share Government. The Committee must choose: do we want a mandatory coalition or a voluntary one? If we want a mandatory coalition, we cannot expect to have an element of choice. It must be a system with some automaticity. That is why this provision is necessary. I hope to convince Members that it is beneficial that there should be some requirement on the institutional review Committee to morph the institutions over time from this restrictive and undemocratic system of mandatory coalition towards something more democratic and voluntary. I recognise that there must be some settling in before people will be comfortable with voluntary coalition. However, there should be recognition that we want to move forward. This proposal is necessary because of the system that the rest of you want to have. Mr Ford: Will you please amend that reference to “the rest of you”, Peter? Mr P Robinson: I thought that your party also supported the Belfast Agreement; maybe not. Mr Ford: Our position was quite clear from the day the Belfast Agreement was signed. Mr P Robinson: I welcome converts, from wherever they come — all the more as time goes on. Mr Ford: We welcome you. Mr P Robinson: The mandatory system can only be temporary; we must progress to democratic norms, and the sooner we do so the better. Provision should be made for that evolution. Dr Farren: The arguments around this issue have been well rehearsed during earlier discussions. Despite the allegations, Peter has a point about the inconsistency of a voluntary element within what he describes as a mandatory Executive. As the SDLP has said in previous discussions, there are particular characteristics, and status, associated with the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister that led to the voting procedure being included in the provisions for their assuming office. We stand by those arguments. Our preference is to retain what was provided for in the Good Friday Agreement and enshrined in the legislation that arose from it. It appears unlikely that we will be able to retain that. We have discussed this issue with the DUP and others, and it will be with reluctance that we accept anything other than what was prescribed in the Good Friday Agreement. One or two points should be made about these proposals. What happens if either the first or second largest party in the respective designations declines to participate in the Executive? Will the legislation provide for other parties to nominate? That point is related to what Conor said. As to the nomination of other Ministers, if the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are elected without a vote, they are essentially being elected in accordance with the d’Hondt principle. The d’Hondt run should commence with those posts and not wait for the nomination of subsequent Ministers. That needs to be considered. The SDLP preference is to not move away from what already exists, and I have queries about the consequences of moving to what is proposed here. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Any other thoughts on this issue? Mr Kennedy: Our concern is the move from the endorsement by the Assembly of the newly formed Executive by virtue of a vote in the Chamber. That change would presumably suit parties such as the DUP. It would mean that the DUP members would not have to raise their hands for a Member that they did not particularly like and with whom they happened to be sharing Government. Mr P Robinson: Except their own members. Mr Kennedy: There is that potential. Therefore, the Ulster Unionist Party believes that that change would not be welcome. 12.15 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am sure that we will reach consensus on the next proposal: lunch is outside. I do not think that we will conclude this issue before lunch. Mr P Robinson: Or after it, unless it is a very good lunch. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Other members wish to speak. Mr Ford: It seems clear, from what members are saying, that several proposals might come forward. I suspect that that will lead to a lengthy discussion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): In that case, it is better to adjourn now and return to those proposals after lunch. Mr P Robinson: There is another snagging issue. Seán has raised one — the “what ifs?” — that, I assume, the NIO will consider. The other issue is that, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, there is a procedure for exclusion. The legislation would have to be amended to allow for those circumstances as well. If the largest party in the largest designation, or the largest party in the second largest designation, were to be the excluded party, it should be only those eligible, rather than the nominating officer for one of those two parties. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will have a discussion on that after lunch. We will return at 1.00 pm. The Committee was suspended at 12.17 pm. On resuming — 1.03 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): I remind members that the quorum is seven, and eight members are here now. Therefore, if anyone needs to go, be careful not to leave the Committee in difficulties. The Committee was discussing paragraph 9 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement, which looks at “Appointment of Ministers in the Executive.” When we broke for lunch, Peter was setting the scene about the exclusion mechanism, and we return to that now. No formal proposals have yet been tabled, and I invite members to consider doing so. Members who wish to speak should give me their names in order that we can continue the discussion after Mr Robinson has spoken. Mr P Robinson: Before lunch, I was not talking about the exclusion mechanism but about a consequence of exclusion. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 allows for exclusion under certain circumstances. I was pointing out a consequence of combining the 1998 Act and the appointment mechanism contained in paragraph 9 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. If a Minister were excluded from the main party in either the largest or second largest designation, it would mean that no mechanism would be in place to elect a replacement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Because the nominating officer would be coming from — Mr P Robinson: Unless the nominating officer for the largest party in one of those designations appointed somebody from a different party, which is unlikely. Mr Ford: Surely the rules specify that one can only nominate from one’s own party. Mr P Robinson: Therefore, it would not work. There would be gridlock in those circumstances. Mr McFarland: If a party were excluded, presumably the next party in line would become the largest party in that designation. Mr P Robinson: No. The excluded party would not be thrown out of the Assembly. It would be excluded from the Executive, but it would still be the largest party from that designation in the Assembly, which is what we are dealing with here — the largest eligible party. My point requires only a one-word change. Mr McFarland: If the largest party were excluded, then presumably, it would be impossible to govern at that stage — Mr P Robinson: No. Mr McFarland: — under the current rules. Mr P Robinson: Why? Mr McFarland: Because the First Minister has to come from the largest party and the largest designation. If that party were excluded, then, under the current law, one could not govern. Mr P Robinson: I think we are getting there, Mr Chairman. That is the point that I raised. That is why it has to be the largest eligible party in each of the designations. Mr McFarland: So you are talking about the second-largest party in the largest designation nominating the First Minister? Mr P Robinson: Or nominating the Deputy First Minister, depending which designation it is, if other representatives have been made ineligible. Dr Farren: Without commenting substantively on the issue, a problem has been identified. Peter said before lunch that the point that I made was not unrelated to this one. We need advice as to how such provisions would be covered in legislation. We are not talking about going outside the 1998 Act, we are talking about exclusion as provided for in the agreement, and reflected therefore in the provisions of the 1998 Act, and the consequences of adopting the amendments suggested here. The same consequences would arise if we did not adopt the amendments suggested. Mr P Robinson: The problem then would probably be even greater, because under existing provision one would require a cross-community vote, and one of those larger parties would be able to block it. Mr Murphy: The existing arrangements allow for a degree of negotiation and flexibility in arrangements if Sinn Féin Members were proposed and elected as First Minister or Deputy First Minister. This proposition departs from the d’Hondt process, which characterises the nomination process for the rest of the Executive. The d’Hondt process relies on the largest parties; this amendment relies on the largest designations, and that is a departure. If one particular designation — be it unionist, nationalist or other — were equally split among a number of parties, then the proposition would be that the First Minister would come from a relatively small party. It is a possibility. However, this proposal departs from the d’Hondt process. D’Hondt deals with the largest parties, and the process of nomination is in relation to party strength. This proposal deals with a process of nomination relating to designation rather than party strength. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Any other comments? How should we proceed with that? Mr P Robinson: We should get rid of the whole system and have a voluntary coalition instead. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that a proposal? Mr P Robinson: I believe that I have proposed that before. Mr Ford: We have never formally recorded votes on that particular proposal. Dr Farren: Given what have been identified as consequential problems, I am certain that I am not in a position to say yea or nay to what is proposed in paragraph 9. I prefaced my remarks earlier by saying that our preference was to stick with what we have. However, if we must move, we would need to explore the consequences of that beyond the change itself. It seems that there is a nest of consequences that have not been anticipated. Mr McFarland: The UUP’ s position — recorded for the fifty-fifth time — is that the current system is fine. The only reason that it is changing is because DUP members do not wish to vote for Martin McGuinness. Mr Murphy: That is a good point. Mr P Robinson: Does Mr McFarland’s party? Mr McFarland: The present system is fine. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is a joint office, and if the DUP wants to go into Government with another party, its members must have the courage of their convictions and put their hands up to vote. Mr Poots: Does that mean that the UUP is opposed to voluntary coalition? Mr P Robinson: I understood that that was the very issue; perhaps Alan was out of the room when we discussed it. The DUP does not support a mandatory coalition. However, if there is to be such a coalition, all parts of it should be mandatory. We want a voluntary coalition in which a party can choose its Government partners. If a party is in the process of choosing those partners, its members will put up their hands to vote for them. However, if that party does not choose them, why should its members vote for them? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will not reach consensus on that. I seem to have said that quite often today. We could ask the NIO to tell us the legislative consequences of what has just been suggested. Mr P Robinson: In case the NIO has missed them, all that we are doing is pointing out some of the consequences that it will have to deal with and what it will have to draft for. The Chairman (Mr Wells): As there have not been any proposals on the issue, how do members wish to proceed? Mr P Robinson: We should note the consequences. Dr Farren: Does the member mean all change? Mr P Robinson: We should note them. Mr Ford: I propose that the Committee recommends that there is no change to the method of electing the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. At least, we will hear five views on that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we hear some views on Mr Ford’s proposal? We will start from the other direction. What are Sinn Féin’s views on that? Mr Murphy: Sinn Féin supports it. The discussion is, essentially, whether we are for or against what is proposed in paragraph 9, which proposes to change the method of election. My party is against paragraph 9 and, therefore, supports no change. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What does the SDLP think? Dr Farren: No change. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Obviously, the Alliance Party supports no change. What are the views of the Ulster Unionists and the DUP? Mr P Robinson: The DUP agrees with what is proposed in paragraph 9. Mr Ford: Given that the DUP — and Peter in particular — has spoken of its reservations about my proposal and mandatory coalition, I propose that if the provisions of paragraph 9 are to take effect at all, they should do so for two Assembly terms at the most. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are you referring to paragraph 9? Mr Ford: Yes. If it appears that the change that is proposed in paragraph 9 is likely, the Committee should state that it believes that it should apply for not more than two Assembly terms. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Perhaps the DUP wants to speak about that. Mr P Robinson: If the proposal is that we should move to a voluntary coalition within two Assembly terms — Mr Murphy: Only one party out of five supporting a voluntary coalition is an interesting view of democracy. The Alliance Party’s view is that a voluntary coalition is likely to happen anyway, and that, again, is an interesting view of democracy. However, paragraph 9 contains a reference to reconsideration. That might happen sooner, especially if the NIO ignores the views of four parties and accepts that of one. Paragraph 9 contains a provision to reconsider the idea within two Assembly terms — which has been proposed— or even sooner. Mr Ford: That is why I said that. Mr P Robinson: That is fundamental. If we accept that the whole system is built on the requirement for cross-community support, perhaps that system should be examined. If that is a strange form of democracy, we should change the system. A cross-community vote is required for any change, whether it takes place now or in an Assembly. That will have the impact that everybody is complaining about: the DUP will have a veto. Equally, under present arithmetic, Sinn Féin will have a veto. If we want to get away from that system and get down to pure democracy, let us do it. 1.15 pm Ms Ruane: If this discussion has finished, I wish to make a point about language. The Chairman (Mr Wells): This discussion has not finished, but you may make your point. Ms Ruane: Gender equality is one of our duties under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Therefore, we should not use terms such as “he” in paragraphs 6 and 9 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. In paragraphs 17 and 18, “his/her” is used. I suggest that we use “he/she” in paragraphs 6 and 9 of annex A. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members content? Mr P Robinson: No. That is not the language that is used in legislation. It does not matter what we suggest, because, when the agreement is legislated on, it will be put into draftsmen’s language in accordance with United Kingdom law. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That means that “he” will be used, and an explanatory note will be inserted to clarify that “he” means “he/she”. Mr P Robinson: A way in which to avoid the issue completely is to refer to the position rather than to a person’s gender. The legislators will do it their way; therefore, there is no point in members trying to write the legislation. Ms Ruane: Perhaps we need draftspersons rather than draftsmen to draft the legislation. I do not accept what the member is saying. Section 75 of the 1998 Act, as a part of human rights and equality legislation, lists gender as one of the nine grounds on which equality of opportunity should be promoted. If it is so difficult to change, why is “his/her” used in paragraphs 16 and 17? I suggest that we change paragraphs 6 and 9 of annex A to “he/she”. Mr P Robinson: What are we changing, Mr Chairman? Are we changing the St Andrews Agreement? Ms Ruane: No, we are changing language that is discriminatory. Mr P Robinson: Are we talking about doing that in the St Andrews Agreement? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr P Robinson: It is not our document to change. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There are two ways in which to deal with this issue. Mr P Robinson: Is that the only amendment that Sinn Féin wishes to make to the St Andrews Agreement? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I suspect not. Ms Ruane: The member should not belittle gender and equality. I want my view to be considered. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If that is a proposal, I shall take it. Mr McFarland: Presumably, NIO representatives will read the proposal in Hansard and reflect on it. It is the NIO’s wording — it has nothing to do with the Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do members wish to vote formally on the proposal, or do they simply want to note it? NIO representatives will read that one member has raised it as a matter of concern. Ms Ruane: I will formally propose it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The rules are simple: if one member makes a proposal, the Committee always allows the proposal to be voted on. Sinn Féin is obviously in favour. Is the SDLP in favour? Dr Farren: The SDLP is in favour of gender-free language, except where gendered terms are required. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that a yes or a no? Dr Farren: In cases in which it is necessary to refer to men or women specifically, “he/she” would not be appropriate. Mr McFarland: I am unclear as to what the issue is. According to our work programme, we have been tasked to consider issues in the St Andrews Agreement. We are not here to dissect the language used in it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): In June, which seems like an eternity ago, we decided that if a party or member makes a proposal, he or she has the right to have it voted on — no matter what that proposal is. Mr McFarland: Yes, but the proposal must relate to the business in hand. I could propose that the Committee buy me a Ferrari. Ms Ruane: With respect, the proposal does concern the business in hand. It is an equality issue. Mr McFarland: It is an issue for the NIO to address. Mr P Robinson: I am encouraged, Chairman. Alan should relax, as the only proposal that Sinn Féin wishes to make to the St Andrews Agreement concerns gender specifics. Mr Murphy: We do not wish to be ahead of our consultation. Mr P Robinson: You may also have to consult on that issue. Mr Murphy: It is party policy for matters to be gender-proofed. We have no difficulty with that, but, as with the rest of the political content, we would not like to be ahead of our consultation. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Unfortunately, or fortunately, we must proceed to a vote, because it has been requested. To be fair to everyone, we must continue down that route. Even though Dr Farren responded, I have still been unable to tease out the SDLP’s view on the matter. Mr Poots: Is it relaxed? Dr Farren: I made our position clear: we are in favour of using gender-free language, except where gender-specific terms are necessary. Mr Ford: The Alliance Party agrees with the Ard-Fheis of Sinn Féin that we should use gender-free language. I do not think that we will persuade the NIO of that, but we should at least use gender-free language ourselves. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The NIO representatives will read the comments in Hansard. Mr McFarland: The UUP has taken Peter’s advice, and we are relaxed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What is the DUP’s opinion? Mr P Robinson: The St Andrews Agreement is not our document. The DUP does not intend to do anything to it other than comment on it after our party consultation has concluded. If other parties are content with the St Andrews Agreement, with minor exceptions, so be it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that an abstention? [Laughter.] Mr P Robinson: The DUP does not want to change the St Andrews Agreement: it is not ours to change. The Chairman (Mr Wells): May we have a summary of the decision that has been made? [Laughter.] Ms Ruane: Thanks, brothers. The Committee Clerk: Sinn Féin said yes; the SDLP, I think, said yes; the Alliance Party said yes; the UUP is relaxed about the issue; and the DUP said that the St Andrews Agreement is not its to change. Mr P Robinson: The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is written in the same way; it uses the word “he”. Mr Poots: Including section 75. Ms Ruane: We are working on that, Peter. Mr P Robinson: No doubt, therefore, that is the language that the draftsmen will use. Mr Murphy: Rome was not built in a day. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Having digressed slightly, we come back to Mr Ford’s proposal, which is the only other proposal that has been made. It states that, if implemented, the measures in paragraph 9 should take effect for two Assembly terms. Mr Ford: Two Assembly terms at most. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does anyone wish to comment on that? Mr McFarland: The Committee has discussed this issue before. It is logical for the Assembly to seek to operate through a voluntary coalition; that is where we should be heading. Indeed, over the summer, we discussed this at length, covering many pages of Hansard reports over many days. It is an aspiration that we should seek to achieve. However, it is clear that the necessary confidence does not yet exist in the community, and, pending the arrival of that confidence, we are stuck with the safeguards that are in place. If, six months into devolved government, we were to achieve the necessary confidence, that would be wonderful; but we should not stick arbitrary deadlines on issues that will, in the end, depend on the degree of confidence between the two communities represented in the Assembly. The change should happen when the necessary confidence exists. That may be in six months; it may be in 10 years. Mr P Robinson: Could we throw a bone in David’s direction and agree that — Mr Ford: What generous new colleagues on Antrim Borough Council. Go on. Mr P Robinson: — within two terms the institutional review Committee should decide on the issue? Of course, its decision would be based on the voting system and, therefore, parties would have nothing to fear. Mr Murphy: Much as I disagree with paragraph 9 of annex A, my objection to David’s proposal is that if the two Governments accept paragraph 9, in defiance of the wishes of the four parties, the issue would be for the institutional review Committee to consider. The committee might merely decide that it cannot agree on paragraph 9 or that it will do nothing about it. However, such a provision is contained in paragraph 9 of annex A and, therefore, David’s proposal seems to be superfluous. If David’s proposal is agreed, and Sinn Féin hopes that it will not be, there already exists a mechanism to deal with timing. The change could be agreed in two months, or it could be agreed after two Assembly terms. Therefore I do not see the need for an additional mechanism. Dr Farren: The cynical side of me sees headlines around this issue. The institutional review Committee would take on board issues that are brought to it, and if parties feel very strongly about timing, even though we might all learn to love one another in the first term, let alone the second, and decide that — politically speaking — we might want to stay together in intimate embrace, the matter may never come before the institutional review Committee. However, if parties want it to come before that Committee, it will. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Ford, having listened to those contributions, how do you feel about your proposal? Mr Ford: It appears that, although both sides agree with the aspiration, parties are resisting anything specific. Putting a timetable to our aspiration would make it more than an aspiration that we will be good someday. There is merit in including a specific timetable. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you wish to make your proposal formally? Mr Ford: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): As usual, we will collect views on the matter. Mr P Robinson: I am not sure what Mr Ford is now proposing, as he has made two different proposals. One was that the mechanism in paragraph 9 should apply only for two terms; the other was that there should be, within a period of two terms, a consideration by — Mr Ford: Other people talked about the institutional review Committee; my proposal is that this mechanism should apply for two terms. Others have proposed the forum in which that issue might be discussed. Mr P Robinson: My response to that proposal is no. The institutional review mechanism should last until we have some sense and move towards a voluntary coalition. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I have a no from the Ulster Unionists. Do I have a yes from the SDLP? Dr Farren: The proposal is premature. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that a no? Dr Farren: Yes. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): What is Sinn Féin’s view? Mr Murphy: We are beginning to sound like the woman from ‘Little Britain’. No — [Laughter.] Since we would not support the proposal in the first place, we would hardly support a mechanism to review it. That is a no. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we summarise where we are? The Committee Clerk: The DUP, no; the UUP, no; the Alliance Party, yes; the SDLP, no — it is “premature”; Sinn Féin, no. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are left with no proposals on paragraph 9. Mr Ford: I think that Seán suggested earlier that implementing paragraph 9 would mean that there would be no joint election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister: they would be individual party picks. Therefore they should be treated as the first two picks, and the d’Hondt mechanism should apply from that point onwards. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You raised that point on a rather hot August day. Mr Ford: If I remember correctly, it cropped up in the week when I was away, and the SDLP raised the issue, although Naomi supported the suggestion. Mr P Robinson: Who supported that breach of the Belfast Agreement? Mr Ford: From what I was told — although, as I say, I was not here — it was an SDLP proposal. Dr Farren: I am talking hypothetically. Mr Ford: However, paragraph 9 — and we all expect it to be implemented, since one party wants it — would alter the fundamental principle of an election for First Minister and Deputy First Minister. In such a circumstance, it would be entirely logical to treat two parties having a pick at the positions of First Minister and Deputy First Minister — Mr P Robinson: Take me through the mathematics of that, David. I wonder which two parties are next to benefit from running d’Hondt in that scenario. Mr Ford: I do not know. Since November 2003, there have been party alliances and defections from one party to another every other week, so it is difficult to predict what might happen in March 2007, even if we could do the sums now. Mr P Robinson: And there may be an election in between. Mr Ford: Since one party wants one, there may indeed be an election. Dr Farren: What is the point of 24 November? Mr P Robinson: Yes, let’s cancel it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Ford, are you making a formal proposal? Mr Ford: Yes. Paragraph 9 fundamentally alters the position of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister: they become party picks. Therefore it is logical that those positions should go into the d’Hondt pool. My proposal takes what Seán and Naomi discussed in August rather further. Mr Murphy: I will speed things up by saying no, we will stick to the agreement as is. Mr P Robinson: You cannot be serious. Dr Farren: I have heard no argument for not taking David’s proposal seriously. Does movement — although I assume that Conor will continue to say no to any movement — not imply a reconsideration of certain issues, such as the operation of d’Hondt? Mr Murphy: This proposal departs from d’Hondt. People are saying that we should either vote for an Executive or we should not. Under this proposal we would have two different systems for appointing an Executive. One system is through the largest designation, whereas the d’Hondt run for the remaining ministerial posts is through the largest party and party strengths. This proposal is a departure from that, which is my point. D’Hondt is run at various stages. An additional proposition is to run d’Hondt for ministerial posts one to 12. D’Hondt is run for posts one to 10, or one to 11 if the proposition on the Committee of the Centre in paragraph 11 of annex A is agreed, and run again. David’s question is a couple of steps down the road. If it were suggested that d’Hondt be used for the appointment of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the question would arise of whether d’Hondt should be run for those posts — posts one and two — and then be started again. D’Hondt would be run for posts one to 10 or, as David Ford suggests, for posts one to 12. D’Hondt runs, stops and runs again in respect of Committee appointees. 1.30 pm Mr P Robinson: It is a silly proposal. Everybody knows that d’Hondt operates on a mathematical basis irrespective of designation. Are we therefore saying that the First and Deputy First Ministers should be appointed irrespective of designation? Is that the proposal? If the Ulster Unionist Party were to become the second largest party, we could have a DUP First Minister and UUP Deputy First Minister. If that is the proposal, I second it. OK, Seán? Is that your proposal? Dr Farren: No, that is not what I meant. Mr Ford: Conor and Peter are confusing d’Hondt as a mathematical rule for determining the order in which ministerial picks are made with the principle that parties choose the Minister and the post. That is currently in the legislation for all ministerial posts except those of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It is also proposed for those posts in paragraph 9 of annex A. D’Hondt is merely the mechanism that allocates the posts. It is possible to apply that principle to any number of different electoral systems. The fact that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are chosen on the basis of designation as well as party does not contradict the principle of what is a party choice system rather than the voluntary coalition that Peter and I would prefer. Mr P Robinson: Parties would not be allowed to choose in any other order other than that set out in the d’Hondt procedure; otherwise, it is not d’Hondt. Parties cannot choose under the d’Hondt system if those choices will then be taken out of the d’Hondt order. Mr Ford: D’Hondt is the mechanism. We could choose to apply it at any particular point. A First Minister and a Deputy First Minister could be elected under the present arrangement and then be included in the formula to determine which party gets the first pick of the other ministerial posts. Mr P Robinson: If you are content with that general principle, would you be happy if another couple of posts were pulled out of the order for divvying up and for d’Hondt to be started as a later stage? Mr Ford: I am not saying that I am content with it at all. I am merely saying that if parties will be picking — which I thought that I had made fairly clear that I opposed — it becomes more logical to ensure that that is all applied. Mr P Robinson: Parties always pick. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, parties picked the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The only change is the mechanism — Mr Ford: Parties did not pick the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in 1998. Mr P Robinson: Of course they did. Do not be silly. Mr Ford: No, MLAs voted. Under the current rules — Mr P Robinson: On what basis? The parties picked them, David; you know they did. Mr McFarland: The difficulty with this issue is that, if the Ulster Unionist Party got a member of the Democratic Unionist Party to move to us, it would give us 25 seats and we would be the second largest party in the Assembly. If the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would be selected on designation, Sinn Féin would have an unfair advantage because we would be the second largest party in the Assembly, but Sinn Féin would get second pick ahead of us. How would that be justified? In a straight pecking order, it would be unfair for Sinn Féin to get second pick ahead of the UUP, if we were the second largest party in the Assembly. Either there is one system or the other; the proposal in paragraph 9 of annex A is a confused modification of the system. If we use designation for the first two ministerial posts, it is hard to see how we can move away from it. Mr P Robinson: That was always the position; designation was used before. Mr Ford: No, it was not. Mr P Robinson: It was used before. It is in the legislation. Mr Ford: No. Votes were cast on the basis of designation, but that had nothing to do with the individuals who were nominated. Under the current rules, it would have been entirely possible for me to go into the Chamber and propose Naomi Long for First Minister and Kieran McCarthy for Deputy First Minister. Mr P Robinson: It is perfectly possible to propose an awful lot of things. Mr Ford: I suspect that we would not have secured a majority under the designation voting rules, but it would have been an entirely proper proposal, because there was no requirement for designations to be taken into account in the nominations, only in the vote. The Chairman (Mr Wells): This discussion has occurred in the middle of the vote on the proposal before us. We had reached the stage of asking the SDLP for its view and we did not get any further. Dr Farren: Can you remind me of the proposal? Mr Poots: Do you wish to dismantle the Belfast Agreement? The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is not what Mr Ford proposed. The proposal is that, because of the change in the way in which the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are elected, that we run d’Hondt — Mr Ford: Appointed, not elected. Mr P Robinson: Nominated, actually. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Obviously, the Alliance Party is in favour of the proposal. What about the Ulster Unionists? Mr McFarland: No; we are for the original system. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we summarise the vote? The Committee Clerk: Sinn Féin said no; the SDLP said yes, the Alliance Party said yes; and the UUP and DUP said no. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are back to paragraph 9 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. We have not yet taken an overall decision on the proposed changes. Mr Murphy: I thought that we had. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have discussed the proposed changes at length, but we have not taken a corporate view, as such, on how we feel about the changes suggested in paragraph 9. I have quite clearly heard Members’ views on that. Mr Murphy: Are you requesting a view on paragraph 9 as is, and whether we are in support of the proposition? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, I am seeking a view on the proposed changes. Mr Murphy: We are not in support of that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sinn Féin says no. What about the SDLP? Dr Farren: As I said, our preference is for these matters to stay as they are. This issue cannot be clarified now, because there are consequences that have not been spelt out. If we were to move to the position outlined in paragraph 9, we would need to know what the consequences would be. Those consequences are clearly not all outlined, and some of them would have significant implications in legislation. Therefore, we cannot assent to this proposal. Our preference is to stick with the current arrangements. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a no. What about the Alliance Party? Mr Ford: Paragraph 9 is worse than the current arrangement, and it also requires clarification that could make it even worse than we already suspect. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that a no? Mr Ford: You can take that as a no, Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The UUP has indicated that it has said no. What about the DUP? Mr P Robinson: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We shall just summarise that. The Committee Clerk: Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the UUP said no; the DUP said yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): In the absence of any other contributions, we shall move on to paragraph 10 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement, which concerns the functions of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister: “The First Minister and Deputy First Minister would reach agreement as to whether any functions of the current OFMDFM should be transferred to other departments, and would put proposals to the Executive and Assembly accordingly.” What do members feel about that suggestion? Mr McFarland: I sense that we can move rapidly through a number of these matters, because parties’ views were fairly clear from discussions the first time around. These matters are not necessarily contentious. We are happy for those matters to go to the Executive and the Assembly for examination and proposal. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The UUP is happy with that paragraph as it stands. What about the DUP? Mr P Robinson: Yes. It is a duty of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to do that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What is the Alliance Party’s view? Mr Ford: I do not understand why this paragraph refers only to functions being transferred away from OFMDFM, particularly as our discussions earlier in the year addressed the issue of relationships between all of the Departments and all functions of all Departments. That matter should have been left with the Executive as a whole. As we have said, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should review and discuss this matter with the Executive — that was the Committee consensus earlier. This paragraph seems to reflect only a very small part of that. Mr McFarland: That is reflected in paragraphs 12 and 13. Mr P Robinson: It is a legal issue. Mr Ford: Singling out this aspect makes it appear that this will be the only bit that will be done properly. Mr P Robinson: The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister already have the powers under section 17(1)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which refers to: “the functions to be exercisable by the holder of each such office.” That refers to the other Ministers; paragraph 10 of annex A ties down their own powers. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 10 tidies up matters, because there was no provision in the legislation to devolve powers from OFMDFM to elsewhere. Mr Murphy: Paragraph 10 is not suggesting a provision in legislation, as I read it. Sinn Féin is happy enough. Paragraph 10 reflects the functions of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister under the 1998 Act in respect of other Departments and suggests that they do the same in relation to their own. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a yes. What does the SDLP think? Dr Farren: Yes. It is a requirement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have consensus on this. Mr Ford: I am not opposing the proposal; I am expressing reservations. It is not as meaningful as it ought to be, given the way in which it is phrased, but I have no objections. Mr McFarland: It is a yes in the meantime. Mr Ford: It is a yes, but I think that the proposal is inadequate, as I believe it was recorded previously. The Chairman (Mr Wells): So we have consensus on paragraph 10. Members indicated assent. Dr Farren: Can I ask for clarification on what it would actually mean in practice? The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should review the number of ministerial offices at an early stage. Would that be before an Executive takes office or is it a requirement under the Act? Mr P Robinson: They may do it at any time under the legislation. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We need to distinguish between what the St Andrews Agreement sets out and what we agreed as a Committee. The differences are recorded in two columns in the table of issues at tab 2 of the members’ pack. On page 8 of the table, in the section “Functions of Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister” as per the St Andrews Agreement is in the column on the left and what the Preparation for Government Committee agreed previously is in the right-hand column. Dr Farren: I appreciate that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have thrashed this issue out, and that is what we agreed ourselves. Dr Farren: But is what the St Andrews Agreement says not implied in what is there already? Is it not explicitly stated already? Mr McFarland: The issue arose because we had learnt from the previous Assembly that OFMDFM was confused over its role, and that some remits might be moved into that office and others might be moved out. The logic was that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would examine that and decide on the remits. That is perfectly logical, and we had agreed it all. I do not understand why there is confusion now. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is no legislation to enable that to happen. Mr McFarland: It is already in legislation. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are charged with deciding what functions should go where, are they not? Dr Farren: That is in section 17(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 10 specifically provides for functions to be transferred from OFMDFM; that is the difference. We already have the power to do that for other Departments, but not for OFMDFM. That is the reason that it is included in there. Dr Farren: Are those Ministers not covered? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No. Mr McFarland: In that case it needs to go into legislation. The issue is the same. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is why we need to make a decision; the draftsmen will have to do that. Mr McFarland: Then the St Andrews Agreement needs to be amended. It does not say — Mr P Robinson: The St Andrews Agreement does not need to be amended — the legislation does. Mr McFarland: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is no need to die in a ditch over this. We can take it that we are agreed on paragraph 10 of annex A. Paragraph 11 of annex A is one of the great triumphs of the Preparation for Government Committee. We agreed that the Committee of the Centre should have a new status in that it would be placed on a statutory basis, as for the ten other Committees. I remember chairing that meeting, and it was one of the few instances of total unanimity. I hope that that will continue with paragraph 11. Mr P Robinson: I am entirely happy with it, but, far from it being a triumph for the Preparation for Government Committee, it was already a provision of the comprehensive agreement. Mr McFarland: Which nobody owns, of course. Mr P Robinson: The two Governments own it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Our greatest triumph has just been stolen from us. Mr Murphy: Success has many fathers — and mothers. Ms Ruane: Thank you. [Laughter.] And paternity is only an assumption. Mr Poots: As the former Chairman of the Committee of the Centre, I thought that putting that Committee on a statutory footing was a wonderful idea at the time, but now the DUP can never chair it again because it is the largest party. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have consensus on paragraph 11, so we can rapidly move on to paragraph 12, which concerns the establishment of a Standing Committee for institutional review. Again, the Preparation for Government Committee discussed that at great length, and there was even quite a discussion on the excellent naming of it. What do members feel about the proposed changes, to examine the operational aspects of strand-one institutions and matters for review to be agreed by the parties and so forth? That was not particularly contentious at the time, apart from the proposed Committee’s name. 1.45 pm Mr Ford: The issue not covered in paragraph 12 — alongside our discussions on the institutional review Committee — concerns the status of the review of the Belfast Agreement provided for under the agreement itself. The two Governments would participate in such a review, not merely the parties in the Assembly Committee. That issue seems to have been lost somewhere in paragraph 12. Dr Farren: It is covered by item 3 on page 8 of table of issues. Mr Ford: It is covered only in the sense that Committee reports are to be considered by the Governments, as opposed to their participation. Dr Farren: Item 3 states: “in consultation with the Irish Government.” Mr Ford: There is a distinction between the wording of the Belfast Agreement, which refers to a review process convened by the two Governments with the Assembly parties, and the wording of paragraph 12 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement, which implies that the institutional review Committee will send reports to the British Government, or to both Governments, as appropriate. To some extent, that removes part of the focus that should be on the two Governments’ participation alongside the parties. Mr McFarland: The Belfast Agreement was crystal clear in that the Irish Government had no involvement in strand-one matters. That position has been held throughout the discussions and has been accepted in many places. We are now trying to allow the idea that the two Governments should be involved in strand-one matters to creep in. The Irish Government are involved in strands two and three but they should not be involved in strand-one matters. Mr Ford: That point is not at issue: I am not trying to allow the Irish Government to “creep” into strand-one matters. Paragraph 12 of annex A states: “consultation as appropriate with the Irish Government.” I assume that that was inserted to allay unionist concerns. The issue is that the British Government does not have a defined role in the review aspects of strand one. Given that so many strand-one issues will impinge on strands two and three, there will be occasions when the Irish Government should also be fully involved. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 12 states that it would only be in circumstances involving legislative changes that would require us to consult the Irish Government. Mr Ford: Yes. The issue is not the role of the Irish Government. On the one hand, the issue is the principle of a review being conducted by the Governments, depending on which strand of the agreement is under discussion, with the parties and, on the other hand, the Assembly Committee being expected to do all the work and then merely report to the two Governments, or the British Government, as appropriate. That fundamentally alters the principle of the Governments’ responsibilities to ensure that the review aspects are carried out. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do members have thoughts on the matter? Mr P Robinson: The institutional review Committee will deal primarily with strand-one issues but may make recommendations on strand two. I do not want to stretch its remit to strand three as well. I am content with the proposal as long as consultation with the Irish Government relates to strands two and three. Why would the Irish Government be consulted on strand-one issues? Mr Ford: I am not suggesting that they would be. I am suggesting that this is a variation of the review as prescribed in the review section of the 1998 agreement. Mr P Robinson: No, it is not. Mr Ford: Yes, it is. Mr P Robinson: No, it is not. This is not a review of the agreement; this is a review of institutional structures. Mr Ford: Yes, and it appears to be taking over the responsibilities of the Governments to ensure that the review process continues. Mr P Robinson: Do you want to continue to lean on Governments outside Northern Ireland? Mr Ford: No, but in some areas the Government need to be more than merely a party that receives reports from an Assembly Committee; they need to be a participant in the review process. Mr Murphy: There are two review processes under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement: one process is in paragraph 36 of strand one, which does not specify who will be involved in the review of Assembly procedures; the other is paragraph 4 of the validation section of the agreement. There was already a review of the Good Friday Agreement per se, to which Sinn Féin is not averse, but we had not agreed on the mechanism to be deployed. Sinn Féin will therefore probably abstain on this matter and on the next. We are not averse to the Assembly arranging review mechanisms; it is just that we have not come to a conclusion on the mechanism to be deployed. The review of the deal was covered in paragraph 4 of the “Validation, Implementation and Review” section of the agreement. There is a mechanism, or a proposition, for a review under strand one in paragraph 36. Mr Ford: The St Andrews Agreement appears to discount the validation mechanism of the original agreement by suggesting that it be done solely by the institutional review Committee, or whatever it is to be called. Mr Murphy: That is your view, but I do not think so. There is a proposition under the agreement that, at various times: “representatives of the two Governments and all relevant parties may meet under independent chairmanship to review implementation of the agreement as a whole.” Dr Farren: Does that not supersede it? Mr Murphy: I am not entirely sold on these mechanisms, but I do not see that they supersede, or do away with, paragraph 4 under the “Validation, Implementation and Review” section. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have not had an SDLP view. Dr Farren: I do not believe that it supersedes it; I tend to agree with Conor on that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Right. David, you are the only person who has any — Mr Ford: It appears that at least two parties express a view that gives me some degree of reassurance that they do not believe that this overwrites the paragraph 4 review mechanism. What are the opinions of the other two parties? Mr McFarland: As I understand it, this is a way of the Assembly reviewing what it does, and why it does it, to make sure that it is effective and efficient all the time. It does not stop there a full review every four years or whatever to confirm that all is well. However, if this is working OK technically, the actual burden of that full review — The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do not mistake this review for the efficiency review; there are two. Dr Farren: Institutional matters. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, the institutional review. The efficiency review is a different issue. Mr McFarland: I have used the wrong wording. Both systems are designed to work out whether we are in the best organisational state or whether what we are doing is the most effective and efficient custom and practice. We discussed that; effectively, it is the same as determining how this works best when the Assembly is operating. My point is that it does not take away from the necessity, perhaps every four years, for a full review as a general concept. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there any suggestion that the paragraph 4 review would be repealed as part of this? Mr McFarland: That is what the discussion was about. Mr Murphy: It could not be, because the review in strand one concerns the Assembly and how it conducts its business. Paragraph 4 reviews the agreement’s implementations, some of which are the sole responsibility of the Irish Government, some the sole responsibility of the British Government. Therefore, we could not collectively review and make recommendations on it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): With those assurances, David, are you happy? Mr Ford: With assurances that at least four parties are agreed on that point, I am happy. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are we content to take the vote on paragraph 12 without further discussion? Mr P Robinson: There are some things in paragraph 12 that we considered to be deal-breakers and that had to be resolved before 24 November. There were other issues that we thought it was necessary to deal with, but they do not require resolution before that date. We were responsible for putting on the agenda of the institutional review Committee matters that, in our consideration at an earlier stage, we indicated could be dealt with under that Committee. They are improvements to the way it might operate. We might not agree, and there may be no progress on them, but it would at least set an agenda for the institutional review Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is everyone happy enough with that or do members dissent? Dr Farren: The principle is that they are entitled to do so. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will take the formal vote on this paragraph. Mr Murphy: We abstain. Dr Farren: Yes. Mr Ford: We accept it. Mr P Robinson: With my addendum, yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we take that as consensus? There was an abstention. Dr Farren: You cannot slip in an addendum like that, Peter. Mr P Robinson: I slipped one in before as well. You agreed with it. Mr McFarland: What was the addendum again, Chairman? Mr P Robinson: My addendum is that the matters that the Committee has said that the new Assembly should consider should form the first agenda for the institutional review Committee. Mr McFarland: As Mr Robinson knows, Committees tend to guard their sovereignty, and the Committee membership normally decides its agenda. I am just worried that we would be seen to be usurping the institutional review Committee’s rightful duties. Mr P Robinson: We are not writing the legislation; we are pointing out that issues remain to be dealt with. Mr McFarland: Yes, but the report can be referred to the institutional review Committee when it is established. Mr P Robinson: That Committee will be in the new Assembly. Dr Farren: In other words, a letter is already in the post. However, it is not our job at present to receive it formally and say that that certain issues must be on the institutional review Committee’s agenda. Mr P Robinson: I think that we are looking for something more than a letter in the post on some of the issues involved. The Chairman (Mr Wells): For clarification, my understanding is that we have taken a vote on paragraph 12 as it stands. Does everybody understand that? There is talk of an addendum to paragraph 12, but the vote was purely on paragraph 12 as it appears in annex A. Are all members happy that that is the proposal on which they voted? Mr P Robinson: No. I have not agreed to paragraph 12 in its present form. I want an addendum inserted. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That will be recorded as the DUP vote in the résumé. The Committee Clerk: Sinn Féin abstained, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the UUP voted yes, and the DUP voted no. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We now move to paragraph 13 in annex A. Mr McFarland: The DUP voted yes to paragraph 12, provided an addendum was inserted. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that a qualified yes, or is it a no? The Committee Clerk: It is a no. The DUP requires that an addendum be inserted. Mr P Robinson: I have no objection to having an institutional review Committee. If you wish the glass to be half full, it is a yes if there is an addendum. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 13 in annex A deals with the proposed efficiency review panel. We had considerable discussion on that in this Committee, and, from memory, I do not believe for a minute that that discussion was particularly contentious. Does anybody have any thoughts on the proposals, of which there are three listed in the table of issues in the future work programme? Some of the proposals are very much in line with what the Committee decided. Do members have any thoughts on the three proposals? Mr Murphy: Again, I am not adverse to the idea of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agreeing review mechanisms into efficiency or any other aspects of strand one. However, some questions arise. Is this to be a one-off piece of work? Will appointments to the panel be made from inside the Assembly or from outside? Equally, some questions do not arise. If paragraph 13 of annex A is to be followed through, I suppose that the melting pot that is OFMDFM will be tasked with coming up with answers to some of those questions. As it appears on the paper in front of us, it is not that clear a proposition. Mr McFarland: This Committee did discuss, at some length, the fact that all the parties should be involved, and that there should be all-party agreement on the matter. However, if the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister suddenly decided to appoint to the panel a number of cronies from each of their parties from outside the Assembly, we would be reluctant to support the proposals. Mr P Robinson: We do not have to follow past practice. Mr O’Dowd: Just because a precedent has been set — Mr McFarland: We would support the proposals if we are talking about MLAs being appointed to the efficiency review panel with all-party agreement on the system of appointments, and so on. What we would not be happy with would be for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to appoint people for their own reasons — not that they would, of course, Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do members have any other thoughts on the issue? Mr P Robinson: It is a sensible proposal. Dr Farren: It has just occurred to me to raise again a question that I have raised several times about some of the other proposals: why does paragraph 13 have to be enshrined in law? If the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister decide that, in the light of circumstances, the type of efficiency review that needs to be undertaken is to be slightly different from what is prescribed here, what flexibility is there for them to shift the focus onto what might generally be agreed to be a more appropriate focus at a particular point in time? Why should so many of these matters be enshrined in law? That ties it down and gives people a kind of lawyers’ charter to challenge individuals if they do not follow to the letter some of the issues that are set down in legislation. It is not that I am expressing opposition to this — 2.00 pm Mr Murphy: Is it being proposed that it should go into the legislation? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, it simply suggests changes. Dr Farren: Yes, changes to legislation are required. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It does not indicate that at all. Mr Murphy: Only two of the paragraphs that we have dealt with to date do not indicate that the 1998 Act would be amended. This paragraph and paragraph 10, which deals with the functions of OFMDFM, do not mention any amendment to the 1998 Act. I presume therefore that they propose that agreement be reached on those matters without necessarily having to include them in legislation. Mr P Robinson: It was not in the draft legislation. Dr Farren: I was not sure to what extent the draft legislation was a guide to what might actually be included in legislation. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Seán, are you content that paragraph 13 does not require changes to legislation? Dr Farren: I raised the issue only because the word “yes” appears in the column titled “Changes required to legislation?”. Perhaps that involves taking something out or putting something into legislation. In any case, let me be clear that I am not against the principle of the proposal. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There does not seem to be too much concern about this paragraph, now that that has been sorted out. Mr Murphy: Some questions still remain. I do not object to the principle of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister establishing a review panel, but further questions need to be fleshed out. Alan has queried whether this panel of experts would be appointed from within the Assembly. Would it be made up of cronies? Will it be a one-off review or an established review mechanism? In principle, I am not against the proposal, but further issues must be addressed before we can sign up to it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Normally, we would simply send a note to the NIO asking for that sort of information. However, its track record in getting back to us has been quite slow, and it would probably not get back to us in time for 31 October. I am sure that NIO officials will read that in the Hansard report. That is the difficulty we face. When the Preparation for Government Committee was going full tilt in July and August, we were sending stuff back and forth all the time, and we normally received the information that we requested. However, paragraph 13 does not involve legislation, so there will be an opportunity to look at this in more detail if the Assembly gets up and running. Mr Ford: Presumably the distinction between paragraph 13 and paragraph 10, which looks at the functions of OFMDFM, is that paragraph 13 looks somewhat more formal and bureaucratic. It would be interesting to know who wrote that particular part of the St Andrews Agreement, since any agreements about what the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister might do might well have been discussed with those individuals who might be in those posts. It would be interesting to know just how they would see that operating. There must be some understanding between those parties. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Good point. Mr P Robinson: The task of achieving efficiency is not one that lasts for a week, a month or a year — it is an ongoing process. I would have assumed that the Assembly would always be striving for efficiency, and that the review would therefore become a regular feature. I never considered that the panel would comprise anyone other than Assembly Members. Obviously, they could call on whatever expertise they wanted to assist them in their task. I had not envisaged that people from outside would form the panel, but is that not a matter for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the final analysis? Mr McFarland: Will the panel operate under a proportional system, as other Committees do? Will its members be appointed in accordance with party strengths? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is not a formal Assembly Committee as such. Mr McFarland: I do not see a particular problem with the panel unless it comprises eight DUP Members — or four Sinn Féin Members and four DUP Members. Were that to be the case, the rest of us would clearly have some views on it. Mr Ford: Peter has highlighted the fact that there are two different aspects to paragraph 13. One is the ongoing work on efficiency and value for money; the other is the specific institutional reform aspect, which, it appears, is not to be dealt with by the institutional reform Committee but by the Efficiency Review Panel. That is creating a difficulty, because there is a distinction between the ongoing work of promoting efficiency and value, which should be the role of every Government Department and the Executive as a whole, and the specific need, which the Alliance Party highlighted early in discussions, to look at the overall number of Departments and similar issues. It does not help that these are contradictory. Mr P Robinson: That is the sort of issue that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will be bringing to the Executive, is it not? Mr Ford: Sorry? Mr P Robinson: It is a matter that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will bring to the Executive in the first instance, particularly if the Executive will be looking at the role of Departments and the responsibilities of other Ministers. Mr Ford: It would have to. Mr P Robinson: We cannot sketch it out in full now. It would take a lot more work than our time allows. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I do not see that as a deal-breaker. When it was debated earlier, members were reasonably laid back about it. Do we need to take a formal vote on paragraph 13? I detect slight variations in members’ views on it. We had better take a vote to keep ourselves correct. Mr P Robinson: The DUP agrees. Efficiency is good. Mr McFarland: My party agrees, provided this provision will not discriminate against other parties. Mr Ford: The Alliance Party agrees, though we would like to see the details. Dr Farren: More detail. Mr Murphy: Sinn Féin wishes to see more detail and abstains from voting in this instance. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we have the headcount please? The Committee Clerk: Sinn Féin abstained. Other parties agreed, though the SDLP, the UUP and Alliance qualified their agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank you. The good news is that the Committee is back on schedule. We are where we should be at this stage on this Wednesday afternoon, and things are moving in the right direction. We move on to paragraph 14, Annex A of the St Andrews Agreement: “Repeal of the Northern Ireland Act 2000. The Northern Ireland Act 2006 provides for the automatic repeal of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 if the Assembly is restored by the date set out in that Act. The Government remains committed to the repeal of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 on the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland.” The St Andrews Agreement simply says that the Government will repeal on restoration. No legislative change is required to do that. What are the members’ views? Mr McFarland: My party disagrees with the repeal. The 2000 Act was brought in as a safeguard to allow for time out if things got into difficulty. When we discussed this we put forward the view that, whilst we understood that it might not be needed, it would be sensible to leave it in place for perhaps the first 12 months, so that if things got into difficulty and people once again were not playing the game, we could have time out and suspend the Assembly while we tried to get it sorted out. As it is, if people are not playing the game, it crashes. We are happy enough in principle for it to go eventually, when we settle down, but we do not think we are there yet and the 2000 Act should be left in place as a safety net for the first 12 months. Mr Murphy: We support the repeal of this Act and would prefer that it happen sooner, rather than on restoration. We have argued for repeal of the suspension legislation. Dr Farren: We support repeal. We are like Daniel O’Connell. Mr Ford: The 2000 Act was a fairly crude safety net. I have no problem with its repeal. However, we have identified elsewhere in our discussions where other safety nets may be needed, but for which we do not yet have the detail. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will be coming to those eventually. Mr P Robinson: Let me give a legal answer and then a political answer. The legal answer is that this is just candyfloss; it is meaningless. If the Government repealed the 2000 Act but wanted a 2007 Act, it could get that in a day. It is a meaningless issue. The political answer is this: I am not looking for time out. The days of suspensions and safety nets are over. We get it right this time. If it collapses, it will take generations to convince anyone that it is worth trying again. That is why we want certainty. We want a process that will last, and that is why it must be secure and why we must get it right first time. The nonsense about suspensions, timeouts and so on will not cut the mustard. If this process collapses, it collapses, and we had better face up to that reality. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does anyone have any other thoughts on this? In the absence of further contributions — and with the danger of becoming an efficient Committee — we will move on quickly. We will take a vote on the repeal of the Northern Ireland Act 2000. Mr P Robinson: I do not wish to encapsulate the views that I gave, both legal and political, in one word. Mr Ford: That is a yes. Mr P Robinson: The views of the DUP are on the record. Mr McFarland: The DUP is relaxed. The Ulster Unionists vote no. Mr Ford: Yes. Dr Farren: Yes. Mr Murphy: Yes. Members indicated dissent. The Committee Clerk: Consensus has not been reached. Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party said yes. The Ulster Unionist Party said no, and the DUP’s views are on the record. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): We move on to community designation, and I suspect that members will have something to say on this subject. The Committee on the Preparation for Government did not make any specific proposals on this issue, but paragraph 15 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement states that provisions could be made to ensure that: “an Assembly Member would not change community designation for the whole of an Assembly term except in the case of a change of membership of a political party.” I think that we all know to what this refers. Dare I ask — Mr P Robinson: Does this relate to the pantomime horse? The Chairman (Mr Wells): David, you have a wealth of experience in this issue. Mr Ford: I would appreciate it if Peter could at least get the saying right. It is the “back-end” of a pantomime horse. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is true; I remember that interview very clearly. David, perhaps you would like to lead off on this, because you raised it in a previous meeting of the Committee. Mr Ford: The wording of paragraph 15 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement, and of the table before us, is of supreme indifference to me, because there is no prospect of myself or any member of the Alliance Party changing his or her designation under any circumstances ever again. We have said that on one or two occasions since 6 November 2001. The Alliance Party believes that there ought to be something in the St Andrews Agreement to say that we are moving away from a system of designation towards a straightforward, weighted-majority voting system. During the mandate of the previous Assembly, no motions that required a cross-community vote were passed without an undesignated majority in excess of two thirds. It is time that we got away from the system of designation completely or, at least, set some kind of sunset clause on it. The current phrasing of paragraph 15 of annex A is, quite frankly, of the most profound irrelevance. We should be more concerned with getting rid of designations and moving towards normal, non-discriminatory, non-divisive voting systems. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You have raised that issue many times. Paragraph 15 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement does not deal with it at all. Mr Ford: The word “designation” is there, so that gives me the opportunity to make my point. In fairness, it is the point that I made to the Clerks when discussing the issues to be submitted. I took the view that if anything that I wished to say was covered by an item on the agenda, I would take the opportunity to speak on it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You are entitled to say make your point, but paragraph 15 of annex A does not deal with your concern. Are there any other views on community designation? Mr P Robinson: The word “of” is there, so may I talk about the Pledge of Office? The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is stretching it a wee bit. Let us stick to designation. Are there any other views? Mr Murphy: Paragraph 15 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement would change what currently exists, which is one session or one term, to, I presume, one Assembly election to the next. Can a session run from one summer recess to the next? I would like clarity on that. Does paragraph 15 allow for the same provision but with a longer time frame? Mr Ford: As members will know, I am not the least bit interested in this — Dr Farren: You have a lot to say about it, though. [Laughter.] Mr Ford: My understanding is that the current rules cover the length of time that a Member is required to hold his or her amended designation. Paragraph 15 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement states that from the day a Member signs the role in the Assembly, he or she will not be able to change designation unless he or she changes parties. Mr Murphy: I will re-read paragraph 15. Mr P Robinson: What is the definition of a party? Mr Ford: Indeed, what is the definition of a party? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Well, we have been down that route, of course. 2.15 pm Mr Ford: Paragraph 15 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement is irrelevant, because it suggests that it would be possible for a Member to change from the Ulster Unionist Party to the Democratic Unionist Party and at the same time change designation from unionist to nationalist. It is not only meaningless, but pointless. Mr Murphy: Although we operate under the Hain Standing Orders at the moment, Standing Order 3(8) of the previous Assembly stated: “A Member may change his/her designation of identity on no more than one occasion during an Assembly session.” Members may change party affiliation at any time. It strikes me that paragraph 15 simply extends that period so that Members would be able to change their designation once every four years instead of once a year, unless they changed their party affiliation. Mr P Robinson: It is to stop the voting cheats. We have experienced cheating, so paragraph 15 aims to tie that down. Mr Ford: I am sure that Mr Robinson would not wish to suggest that anything that was acceptable under Standing Orders was in any way cheating. Mr P Robinson: That is why the Standing Orders must be changed. Mr Ford: In other words, he acknowledges that it could not have been cheating because it was acceptable under Standing Orders. Mr Murphy: It is so that there will be pantomime horses only once every four years, instead of every Christmas. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): I do not detect a huge divergence of opinion. We will go round the table as normal, and if anyone feels cheated at any stage, I will — Mr Ford: May I make a formal proposal? I will not detain the Committee too long. I propose that the Committee wishes to end the designation voting system and replace it with a non-discriminatory, non-divisive system at the earliest possible date. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is at a slight tangent to — Mr McFarland: Chairman, may I again propose that the Committee buys me a Ferrari? Mr Ford: Alan, if you can find “Ferrari” anywhere in the St Andrews Agreement, yes, you may. Mr McFarland: No, I said “a Ferrari” — the letter “a” is in the agreement somewhere. Mr Ford: Chairman, as paragraph 15 refers to how designation operates, it is entirely reasonable to discuss when the designation system may end. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am feeling generous and will allow it, Mr Ford, although it is a slight variation on what is before the Committee. Mr Ford: Much of today’s discussion has been a variation on the paper before us. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You have raised the point many times in the Committee. Mr Ford: You have noticed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Many, many times. Mr Ford: I will probably have to continue to do so. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Shall we go through the wording of the proposal again, just to be sure? Mr Ford: My proposal is that the Committee wishes to see an end to the designation voting system at the earliest possible opportunity. I have left out the adjectives in order to simplify the motion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If everyone is clear on that, let us collect the votes. Mr Murphy: I have no difficulty with that aspiration; I wish to see the end of this Committee’s work soon too. I have no difficulty with our ultimately not being divided along the lines of identity. Anyone who aspires to normal politics aspires to that. Dr Farren: The SDLP abstains. We have discussed the matter several times, and I am not sure that it is valuable to revisit it now. Mr McFarland: The UUP will agree in due course, when there is community confidence — as we have said on 10 previous occasions. Mr Murphy: After you get your Ferrari. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What is the DUP’s position? Mr P Robinson: Yes, the sooner the better. Mr Ford: That means that there is three-party consensus. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Let us review that. The Committee Clerk: The SDLP abstains; Sinn Féin agrees; the Alliance Party agrees; the UUP said “in due course”; and the DUP agrees. There is no consensus. Mr P Robinson: I thought that the wording in the proposal was “in due course”. Mr Ford: The words I used were “at the earliest possible date”. Alan seems to be stretching it a bit further than that. You and Conor seemed to be agreeing, although “in due course” was not defined. Mr McFarland: Chairman, “at the earliest opportunity” will be appropriate only when there is community confidence and acceptance, with which it does not necessarily coincide. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have had the review and must now take a formal vote on community designation, as it stands in paragraph 15: “An amendment to the 1998 Act would provide that an Assembly Member would not be able to change community designation for the whole of an Assembly term except in the case of a change of membership of political party.” We need to get views on that. Shall we start with Sinn Féin? Mr Murphy: Sinn Féin has no difficulty with that, as my party was never a beneficiary of any dodgy voting deals. Mr Ford: Did your Ministers not take office after December 2001? Mr Murphy: You were trying to save David Trimble, not our Ministers, I can assure you. Mr Ford: We were trying to save the Executive as a whole; we were certainly not trying to save David Trimble. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I think that members are trying to score political points. Is the SDLP happy with the proposal? Dr Farren: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is the Alliance Party happy? Mr Ford: I am supremely indifferent and not in the least bit relaxed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will take that as an abstention. Mr McFarland, is the UUP happy? Mr McFarland: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What about the DUP? Mr P Robinson: Again, I return to the addendum issue. Yes, the DUP is happy with the proposal, but our belief is that designation should be done up front, so that the electorate know what a Member’s designation is before he or she is elected, and so that Members do not cheat after an election is over by looking at the strength of the various parties to determine where their designation might make a difference. For example, if Diane Dodds, having topped the poll in West Belfast, was returned after an Assembly election — Mr Murphy: Cheating allegations would be made there. Mr P Robinson: In theory, if she were to designate as a nationalist, she could support the SDLP, and it might become the largest party in that designation. That would be allowed under the rules as they have already been amended. Mr McFarland: Country before party, Chairman — very laudable. Mr P Robinson: However, if candidates were to designate at the time of an election, everybody would know exactly where Diane stood. If she designated as a nationalist at the election, she might top the poll. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): That caveat is recorded in Hansard. Mr Murphy: Is it a suggestion or a caveat? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is a hypothetical situation. We have reached the end of paragraph 15, and that concludes our discussions on strand one issues in annex A. However, both Chairmen of the Committee have always made it clear that if any member feels that any issue of concern for his or her party has not been addressed during this process, and there has been a lot of chopping and changing and views expressed, a wash-up session can be held at the end at which members can raise issues that have not been addressed. It is now 2.20 pm, and the Committee sitting is not due to finish until 4.00 pm, so we have several options. We could deal with any outstanding strand one issues quickly, and we could then move on to strands two and three issues. That is entirely up to members. Mr McFarland: We could catch up on ourselves. Mr Murphy: I am in favour of continuing until 4.00 pm. I do not know how quickly, or otherwise, we may get through matters, but if we were able to get through them in another hour and a half, that would save members coming back tomorrow. Obviously it depends on the availability of members, but if we were to get through all the business this afternoon, or if proceeding would even allow us to plan to sit for half a day tomorrow, so much the better. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will do the wash-up session on issues that have been raised or that members wish to raise. If we get that over quickly, we will start to discuss strands two and three issues in annex A. We shall try to get as many of the strand two and three issues out of the way as possible. Does anyone have any strand one issues that have not yet been addressed properly? Remember that the deadline of 31 October means that the Preparation for Government Committee must either speak now or for ever hold its peace. Mr P Robinson: I have raised a number of issues, of which sanctions was one. We could deal with that issue until 4.00 pm. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I would like to think that, at the very minimum, we will conclude strand one issues in annex A today. I do not want to carry over any strand one issues into tomorrow. Equally, however, it is important to get any outstanding issues cleared up as quickly as we can. Mr P Robinson: I will raise the matter, but I would be shocked if we got agreement on it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): For the benefit of members who were not present when the issue was first raised, could you give us a couple of lines on what sanctions the DUP believes should be included? Mr P Robinson: There is an issue here. There will be a least four parties in any Executive formed under the mandatory system. Sanction mechanisms are available in a voluntary coalition, but none are available in the type of mandatory coalition that we have that could adequately ensure that, if any of the parties defaulted, the whole Assembly would not crash down and everybody would not be punished for the sins or shortcomings of some. The Committee became inquorate at 2.24 pm. On resuming — 2.25 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): I shall ask Peter to continue with what he was saying. Mr Murphy: We shall have to synchronise our toilet breaks. Mr P Robinson: We should ask what will happen if there is a breach of commitment by any party after devolution. Suspension occurred under the Northern Ireland Act 2000. Most people believe that we cannot afford to have an Assembly that is up one moment and down the next. We must have a system that is stable and capable of continuing even if rough days are ahead. I hope that there are none; I am not planning any. I just want to ensure that there is a mechanism that will ensure that the Assembly’s life continues rather than dies, which it would under present arrangements. Several sanction mechanisms can be considered. However, I suspect that there will be difficulties with each of them in that people may not be prepared to accept the decision that any person or body might make. We must have an honest discussion about what to do in such circumstances. I will not predict what those circumstances might be, but let us assume that a party defaults on such a serious matter that all others believe it should not be part of an Executive, or, at least, that a sufficient number of others believe that the Executive could not operate. What will happen? Do we go through all the pain that we have endured before, or do we sensibly put a mechanism in place to ensure that the Assembly’s life continues? Mr McFarland: Can we remind ourselves of the current system? There is a detailed mechanism in which the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) adjudicates and refers back to the Secretary of State and so forth. Can we refresh our memories as to the current system so that everybody has a common understanding of it? Mr P Robinson: There are several current systems. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Assembly has the ability, by way of a cross-community vote, to exclude Ministers from the Executive under circumstances that are set out in that Act. However, if the DUP were to default, there would not be a cross-community vote to put the party out: likewise, if Sinn Féin were to default, there would not be a cross-community vote to put it out. Mr McFarland: The only cross-community vote that needed 50:50 support was the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister; the rest needed 60:40 support. My party and, perhaps, the SDLP have the numbers. My party certainly has the numbers that are needed to represent 40% of unionism. Mr P Robinson: That is great news for Alan. Some people might suggest that he is wrong and that the history is that his party did not have the courage to remove the DUP from the previous Executive when clearly, according to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, there were rogue Ministers. Politically, his party was not prepared to do that. Equally, the SDLP did not have the courage to remove Sinn Féin. Therefore his party taking such action will just not happen. Mr McFarland: We are talking about mechanisms, Chairman, not about what happened before. Mr P Robinson: We are talking about mechanisms that work; those mechanisms did not work. Mr McFarland: My question was not whether they worked: I asked what were the current mechanisms. Mr P Robinson: That is one of the current mechanisms. I have just summarised that it did not work in the past, and I do not conceive that it will work in the future. Given that that did not work, the other mechanism that was put into legislation was one whereby the IMC could make recommendations that might include the suspension of parties or the levy of fines upon them, and that such a recommendation would come before the Assembly. If the Assembly accepted that recommendation, it could take the necessary action to fulfil it. However, if it did not, the Secretary of State had the power to act on it. Many people believe that the Secretary of State does not have the political will to make such decisions. The same mechanisms would apply to a future Assembly as applied in the previous one. 2.30 pm Mr McFarland: Is Peter suggesting that a party could head for the High Court if it decided that another party was in default? Normally, the courts do not wish to get involved in political issues, but they could decide to remove a party in default. For example, if the DUP were at fault and the High Court decided to remove it from Government, do members seriously think that the Government would continue without the DUP? Is it being suggested that the courts would be prepared to adjudicate, as they often do not at present? Mr P Robinson: If the courts were the mechanism for deciding those issues, they would have no choice about whether they could make such decisions. If the law required the courts to hear the case, they would do so, but I would not advocate that system. My guess is that the courts would take many months to consider such matters, and it would be many more months before their decisions could be appealed. There are difficulties in using the normal processes of the law to deal with such situations. However, there are some possibilities: one could remove from Government the element of choice in the acceptance of an Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) report; one could put in place a quasi-judicial process, such as the example of Ken Livingstone and the Greater London Authority; and there may be other suggestions. The issue must be resolved, but I am unsure whether I have the solution. There are ways of addressing the matter, but it is a problem that we could face. In response to Alan’s other question, if the DUP robbed the Northern Bank, the other parties might not want it in an Executive and might decide that they would be prepared to govern without it. I am sure that the Ulster Unionists would have been happy to govern without us in the past. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do members on the other side of the room have any thoughts on this matter? Mr Murphy: I am beginning to regret suggesting that we continue the meeting. Sinn Féin is not in favour of exclusion mechanisms. If a party decides that it no longer wants to serve in Government with another party, it has the option of walking out. If the Government can survive with its absence, they can continue or, if a party’s refusal to continue in Government caused the Assembly to crash, there would be an election and the people could decide who was responsible for causing the difficulties that forced an election. If politicians decide that they can no longer remain in Government, they go back to the electorate to seek an endorsement of that view. That is the normal democratic way. Sinn Féin is not in favour of current or additional exclusion mechanisms. Dr Farren: Theoretically, and from past experience, there is an issue to be addressed from what Peter said. However, the situations that he envisages always run up against the test of determining the evidence for such steps to be taken. I am not happy with the current situation. Alan highlighted the IMC’s power to investigate and conclude. It is a means of circumventing the normal legal processes, and the Secretary of State may act on a recommendation from the IMC. I regard that as not a very helpful way of intruding into the political process. If the political process, through the Assembly, cannot take action, or the action that it takes is not effective — and experience elsewhere would bear this out — there is only one form of recourse. I agree with what Conor said: there must be recourse back to the people to let them assess the situation as best they can and want to. The people can then bring their judgements to bear, and those Members whom they re-elect to the Assembly and the Executive would be determined on the basis of the outcome of that election. The fact that exclusion might happen shortly after the formation of an Executive should not frighten us, because Governments can fall within six months of being elected to office, requiring fresh elections to be called. That happens in democracies all over the place. Unless we were to subject ourselves to huge intrusion from the legal system, I am not too sure that other forms of recourse are open to us that would effectively address the issue. I recognise that there is an issue. The question of whether a Government should not be able to continue is a real one, given the possibility that only one party might be under suspicion — however strong it may be — of having transgressed in a way in which the absence of some means of dealing with that transgression, other than an election, would require Government to be collapsed and for the country to go to the polls. Mr Ford: If we talk about exclusion processes, we are putting the finger in the wrong place. The issue is about how we maintain integrity in the Executive to the point that ensures that those parties that are in the Executive have confidence in each other. That was not the case in what went before, which is why we have been saddled with a variety of mechanisms to deal with such problems. As long as the majority view continues to operate on the basis that there will be a mandatory coalition, and if there is a fear that parties will default, I do not see how we can manage without some way of ensuring that the Executive can continue in office without all the parties who originally took up their places. A voluntary coalition would solve the problem. Parties would have the option of withdrawing from Government, either to form an alternative Executive or deal with the problem in the way in which it would be addressed in normal democracies. However, the only alternative to a mechanism to ensure integrity seems to be the option of going to the people — who might very well return an Assembly so sufficiently unchanged that the seats in the Executive would be completely unchanged or almost certainly very close to what they were before. I do not see how that would solve the problem. A voluntary coalition system would address the problem, but now that we have agreed to the abolition of the 2000 Act, and while a mandatory coalition exists, there must be a mechanism to ensure the continuance of the Executive without necessarily including all the parties that were original members. On that basis, it is necessary to have a mechanism that would ensure that level of integrity. It is to be hoped that we would not need to use the mechanism, but if it were not available, the only option would be to collapse the Assembly, which could necessitate several elections in a row. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Obviously, regardless of the angle from which members approach this, everyone accepts that it is a big issue. Our difficulty is that I could have written the script — we could all have — for what each party would say. The only tentative proposal is from Peter; that there should be a mechanism to allow devolution to continue if one party defaults on its commitments. Some parties said that they are against any mechanism or exclusion process. I suspect, therefore, that that proposal might have difficulty in achieving consensus. However, I see no way of squaring the circle. Mr Murphy: Can we not just note the discussion and let those who wish to read the Hansard report form their own opinions? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I must allow the DUP to move its proposal if it wants to do so. Do you wish to move the proposal, Peter? Mr P Robinson: My proposal would come into effect if there were a significant default in a party’s commitment. Dr Farren: What additional mechanisms does Peter propose? Mr McFarland: We have mechanisms that do not work. It would be useful to have a proposal for a new mechanism so that we could consider whether it was better the current arrangement. Mr P Robinson: If we agree the principle of the proposal, new mechanisms would be the next stage. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Judging from the parties’ comments, it does not look as if we will reach that stage. Mr P Robinson: Really? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, that is surprising. We will move the proposal, but, as I say, I will be surprised if we reached consensus on it. What is Sinn Féin’s view? Mr Murphy: The proposal would create a mechanism to ensure that the Executive would continue if one of the parties were in default. In effect, however, that means additional exclusion mechanisms. As we do not support the exclusion mechanisms that already exist, we will not support additional ones. We will not support the involvement of the IMC, the Secretary of State or anybody else in deciding who represents whom at the Executive table. Dr Farren: The SDLP does not accept the proposal. We are where we are, and we have what we have. Mr Ford: The existing mechanisms failed to work on several occasions. Members have said today that we have to get it right this time. Regrettably, that means that we must ensure that a default mechanism is in place; therefore, I agree with Peter. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will take that as a yes. Mr McFarland: The IMC system has not yet been trialled. The Ulster Unionists are for improved safeguards; the difficulty is knowing what they will be. Until we see what they are, it is hard to judge whether new ones would be better or worse than the ones that we have. I agree with the general concept of having safeguards. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The DUP said yes. We have not reached consensus on the proposal. Therefore, all that we can do is allow the Northern Ireland Office to note our discussion in the Hansard report. Unless anyone has a suggestion to move us on, we will not make any progress. I am giving members an opportunity to raise issues that interest them. We were unable to discuss an issue this morning because Alan was out of the room: the matters that the Preparation for Government Committee covered in its reports but which are not included in the St Andrews Agreement. I have a significant list of such issues. I suspect that they were not covered in the St Andrews Agreement because they were seen as relatively uncontroversial. For instance, one proposal was that the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers should be elected by cross-community vote. I remember being in the Chair for that discussion. Mr McFarland: Was that not agreed? The Chairman (Mr Wells): All those issues were agreed, but they did not appear in the St Andrews Agreement. Mr McFarland: That is the current system. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Members should refresh their memories about those issues. Some are institutional issues that would have come up today; others are that MLAs should continue to be elected by single transferable vote; a review of how civic society engages with the Assembly; and the accountability of Ministers to the Assembly on North/South Ministerial Council matters. I suspect that we did not reach agreement on that. Mr Murphy: Once we have cleared the exercise of going through annex A to the St Andrews Agreement, I suggest that we run through any matters that have not been addressed and decide what to do about them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The list of institutional matters that were covered in the Committee’s reports, but were not addressed in the St Andrews Agreement is very short. We could perhaps clear those matters out of the way in five minutes. That would give one last opportunity to raise any issues on strand one that members feel concern about. It was proposed that the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers should be elected by a cross-community vote. That issue was non-contentious when it was discussed, so perhaps we should leave that matter and not raise it further. Mr McFarland: The first three matters on that list reflect current systems, so there is nothing to be done about them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, but there were current systems with which members disagreed. Mr McFarland: There are agreed current systems, so there is no need to do anything. Everyone is agreed that what is listed is OK. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We shall note that and move on. It was proposed that mechanisms are needed to ensure institutional stability. Dr Farren: Is that not the issue on which we just spent half an hour? 2.45 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes; that is out of the way. It was proposed that, in principle, certain public appointments should be brought to the Executive for endorsement. Mr McFarland: If that is a principle, there is not much that can be done until the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister bring those proposals forward — or not, as the case may be. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We do not wish to have any further discussion on that. It was proposed that there was a need to review the ways in which civic society engages with the Assembly. Mr McFarland: That is a serious issue, which concerns whether the Civic Forum continues or whether the Assembly develops an alternative. That may be a matter for one of the Committees. I have talked to people who served on the Civic Forum who felt that, whilst it was not a complete waste of time, they were not getting best value out of it. Mr P Robinson: They were not getting the best value? [Laughter.] Mr McFarland: The system was not producing what it was supposed to produce. There was a suggestion that perhaps a more formal system could be introduced whereby non-governmental organisations and voluntary bodies engaged directly with the relevant Committees. For example, health organisations could talk to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That more structured basis would produce more effective linkages to the views of civic society on particular issues so that the Assembly, through its Committees, could take note of them, rather than the Civic Forum blethering away with no one taking a blind bit of notice. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is an interesting synopsis of the work of the Civic Forum. Mr McFarland: That is effectively what happened. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any comments on Alan’s views? Mr Murphy: I do not think that we will resolve that today. There was a general view that if we get our business out of the way, parties can examine how civic society interacts with the Assembly. That is fair enough. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It was proposed that there was a need to review the ways in which civic society engages with the Assembly. That is very broad. Mr McFarland: A Committee could examine how best to hear civic society’s views directly in the Assembly, rather than have a body that chats to itself and to which the Assembly does not listen. That, effectively, was what happened in the previous Assembly. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have addressed the issues that were agreed. Obviously, no one wants to resurrect them, so those matters are out of the car park and away up the road somewhere. We do not need to worry about them any further. Mr P Robinson: We are saying that they can be dealt with by the institutional review Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes; we do not need to waste time with them. Mr P Robinson: They are not away up the road. The Chairman (Mr Wells): They are away up to the institutional review Committee. They have gone to another car park. Mr Ford: It is only the last two points on the list that are relevant. Mr P Robinson: I would be happy to mention specifically in the legislation, alongside the provisions relating to the institutional review Committee, that that Committee should consider moving from a mandatory coalition within two Assembly terms. I honestly believe that that should be in the legislation; it is not just to keep the Alliance Party happy. Mr Ford: I did not think so. Mr P Robinson: It also sets a goal for the Assembly without placing any requirement on parties to accept it further down the line. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is quite a major proposal, which has come very suddenly. Mr P Robinson: We were about to leave the remaining institutional issues. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is only one more issue to address. If you then wish to make a formal proposal, you certainly may. Mr P Robinson: I think that I will. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is one final issue that has been raised but has not been voted on. We are dealing with small beer at the moment. Can we get the final issue out of the way? Mr Murphy: A small beer would go down well. The Chairman (Mr Wells): So far, we have been dealing with strand one issues on which the Committee agrees. We are left with one issue, which one party required to be resolved prior to restoration, concerning the accountability of Ministers to the Assembly on NSMC matters. This issue was discussed at a previous meeting. I was not present at that meeting, but I understand that that matter was not pursued. We need to clear up that issue and we can then move on to Mr Robinson’s proposal. Mr Murphy: Does that relate to paragraphs 16 and 17 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No. That issue was not raised yesterday. I was not here, and I am only going on reports. Mr Murphy: The meeting was on Monday, actually. The Committee went through paragraphs 16 to 18 of annex A, did we not? Mr McFarland: Yes. We covered paragraphs 16 to 18 and took votes, etc. The Chairman (Mr Wells): This issue has been carried over from the Committee on the Preparation for Government’s report and was not addressed through any of the resolutions that we made. I do not want anyone to come to a Committee meeting saying that there was a burning issue, which I did not give him or her an opportunity to raise. I believe that the proposal was made by the DUP. Mr McFarland: Does this matter relate to Ministers reporting back to the Committee and the Assembly and members having the opportunity, through the Committee, to question them? One could ask questions in the Assembly, but one could not actually ask Ministers follow-up questions because each Member was allowed to ask only one question. The DUP’s proposal was that Ministers should report back to the Assembly and to the Committee so that issues could be discussed. Is that correct? The Chairman (Mr Wells): That was the tenor of the discussions in August. Mr McFarland: That does not appear in the St Andrews Agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It does not. That matter could be swept up along with the statutory ministerial code, but there is no guarantee of that. Some members may feel aggrieved that we have not discussed that matter. We will clear the decks, as it were. Mr McFarland: That requirement should be included in the ministerial code — that is where it should be swept up, should it not? Mr P Robinson: That is covered in the draft legislation. Mr McFarland: Presumably it should be in the ministerial code as well. The code should require Ministers to report back to the Committee, which should be the norm as regards any other Department. Dr Farren: Where are we? We have so many bits of paper. I recall discussing paragraphs 16 to 18 of annex A at the last meeting. Did that discussion not deal with these issues? The Chairman (Mr Wells): There was no formal discussion. Mr McFarland: The headings covered preparation and attendance at NSMC and BIC meetings. I do not recall discussing Ministers’ reporting back. That issue was raised in this Committee as requiring a solution. Dr Farren: Therefore, we are dealing with the element of reporting back. Mr McFarland: Yes. This matter concerns how Ministers are held accountable. Ministers turned up in the Chamber, and Members could only ask one question each. If Ministers were very skilful, they could evade questions. There was no real opportunity to question Ministers. We have moved on, and we will be able to quiz chief executives and chairmen once a year. The logic is that a Minister, having attended an NSMC meeting, will come back to a Committee — as well as the Assembly — and members will be able to discuss the issues in detail and with more time. Is that the essence of it, Peter? Mr P Robinson: That matter is covered by the ministerial code as drafted in the legislation, which the Committee has already seen. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If members are happy that the issue is covered elsewhere, that is fine. This matter is being raised this afternoon because of the spectre of someone meeting me in a dark alley and saying that they wanted it discussed and that I would not allow it to be considered. If members are happy, we can move on to strands two and three. We have done a lot of work today, if that is the case. Mr O’Dowd: Mr Chairman, your colleagues have agreed not to take you into the dark alley, so you are all right. Mr P Robinson: Are we taking a vote now? Mr Murphy: Is that a proposition? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee will be returning to your substantive proposal, Peter. I just want to clear the decks. Mr P Robinson: It was only a minor proposal. It was the “Let’s please David Ford” proposal. Mr Ford: You said that it was for real. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is the Committee happy to set aside the issue of Ministers reporting back from NSMC meetings and that there are no problems with it? If that is so, we have cleared the decks on the list of issues on which the Committee reported, but are not addressed in the St Andrews Agreement. We are left with the residual issues in strand one that members feel have not been addressed properly. Peter has one proposal to make. Is the DUP ready to reiterate its earlier proposal? Mr P Robinson: Our proposal does no violence to anyone’s position. It points up our desired goal of moving towards a normal democratic society in Northern Ireland. We have all recognised that special circumstances have led us to the system that will operate upon restoration, but our proposal sets the goal that the institutional review Committee should, within the first two terms of the Assembly, consider and decide how best to evolve towards a non-mandatory system. We may not have to wait too long: if the change can take place within six months, so much the better. I have no emotional capital tied up in the precise terms of the proposal; therefore, it can be made in whatever fashion with which members feel most comfortable. It would be one of the roles of the institutional review Committee to consider the change of system, and as that Committee will be governed by voting procedures, its decision will not endanger the overall position of any of the parties. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are you asking that the institutional review Committee be tasked to consider a change to the system or to make changes to the system? Mr P Robinson: I would want the institutional review Committee to consider the issue and make a decision. I realise, however, that its members may decide not to. The Chairman (Mr Wells): OK. Mr P Robinson: The decision is theirs. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is clear. Do members have any thoughts on that proposal? Mr Murphy: In the previous Assembly, the Standing Orders under which Standing Committees and other Committees were set up were nearly universal. For example, Standing Order 49(2) for the Committee on Procedures stated that: “The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine”. I presume that “procedures” refers to a Committee’s deciding its agenda and so on. Therefore, although I would be open to the creation of an institutional review Committee, it should be up to its members to determine the items that should be on its agenda. I do not want to be pre-emptive. Therefore, I do not support the proposal. Dr Farren: During earlier discussions, I expressed the SDLP’s views on this issue. In the light of the circumstances, we are open to change. I believe that Committees will draw up their own agendas. I am sure that if this is a burning issue with one or more of the parties, it will be put on the agenda of the relevant Committee. There is no need to be prescriptive. The issue has been signalled as one of concern; therefore, it will remain thus. I will not descend to being prescriptive for the agenda of any Committee that may continue the work that we have begun to discuss, either in this Committee or elsewhere. Mr Ford: Peter’s proposal is a very modest aspiration to move us forward to more normal democratic politics with the appropriate safeguards. I happily endorse it. Mr McFarland: Yes, the proposal is a good aspiration. It is an issue that the Assembly will no doubt consider in due course, when it is felt that the confidence is there and the time is right. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we have a review of the voting? The Committee Clerk: Sinn Féin, I think, said no. The SDLP said no, it would not support such a provision in legislation. The DUP, the UUP and the Alliance Party said yes. Mr P Robinson: Perhaps it could be noted that although Sinn Féin and the SDLP said no, neither was terribly exercised about the issue. [Laughter.] Mr O’Dowd: Yeah, we were relaxed. Mr Murphy: I do not recall saying that. Mr Ford: Have we created a new category of “relaxed no”? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We seem to have created two new categories: “relaxed no” and “relaxed yes”. We are concluding discussions on strand one. I have not heard any other outstanding issues. If there are none, I propose that we make a start on strand two. If we were to spend at least an hour on it, it should ensure that we need only meet for a morning session tomorrow. Mr Murphy: We could finish discussing strand two today — the political will is there. Mr McFarland: We could finish it today. The issues are fairly short. Mr P Robinson: We could disagree very quickly. 3.00 pm Mr Ford: Should we take a five-minute break for a breath of fresh air and to open the windows, Chairman? I do realise that, when I say five minutes, we may end up taking 10 minutes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I want members to return, because we need them in order to maintain a quorum. Dr Farren: Mr Chairman, I am sorry that I was slow to respond to your request that parties with any other suggestions should make them, but I am happy and anxious to take the fresh air that David is offering us. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you wish to raise a strand one issue? Dr Farren: Yes, we have some proposals that might be worth considering. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You are entitled to raise them. Can we make the break five minutes, because it has sometimes been difficult to re-establish a quorum? The Committee was suspended at 3.01 pm. On resuming — 3.08 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have a quorum. Dr Farren: There is an issue that we should at least consider and reassure ourselves on — if nothing more formal than that. In trying to work collectively, the Executive ran up against a difficulty when they called for papers from the Ministers who did not attend Executive meetings. Peter will recall what I am talking about. It posed a particular difficulty when we were discussing matters related to Belfast harbour. Colleagues will recall that that issue was of some significance during our time in office. The decision to withhold the requested papers was done so by appealing to the executive authority of the Minister. Unless an Executive has the power to call for papers that it deems relevant, and, indeed, for persons in a position to provide relevant information or evidence, on matters that are subject to collective decision-making, that very process will be impeded. Our experience on this matter suggests that an Executive should be empowered to call for papers and persons, and that that should be reflected clearly in the ministerial code and may require to be underwritten in statute. It must at least appear in the ministerial code in such a way that it would not be easy to evade such a requirement. That is the general proposition, illustrated by the example. I do not wish thereby to revisit the whole issue, but simply to make the point. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You have dropped a slight hint as to whom that Minister might have been. Dr Farren: What? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will just ask. Mr Murphy: Is there a Minister here to respond? Mr Poots: That is an outrageous attack on Gregory Campbell. Mr P Robinson: There is an amusing side to all of this. Some of the proposals that my party have put forward are intended to deal with situations that we faced in the last Assembly, just as the proposal that Seán is putting forward is to meet circumstances that he met in the last Assembly. Strangely, for both of us, because there is a role reversal in this Assembly, we are probably both inserting new conditions that will help the other guy rather than ourselves. I am all for Seán’s proposal. I will go for that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The road to Damascus? Dr Farren: Experience teaches lessons, does it not? Mr P Robinson: I am glad that they are learnt. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There seems to be cross-community support for this proposal. May we have a few other views? Mr Ford: Anything that Seán and Peter can agree on, from their previous experience on the two sides of this argument, can only be beneficial. I have to record, however, that, had we a normal, democratic, voluntary coalition such as operates in civilised places like Dublin and Edinburgh, it would not be a problem. Mr Poots: Hear, hear. Mr Ford: I am sorry; I forgot to put the old record on again, so I thought it was time that I brought it out. Mr Murphy: Sinn Féin has no difficulty with the proposition. Seán suggests that, rather than something that should be legislated for, this should be part of the new ministerial code, to be agreed by the Executive and put to the Assembly. That is a sensible proposition. Mr McFarland: I would like a little further detail. Committees had trouble with this in the first Assembly. Are we talking about current papers or about papers dealing with past events and projects? There is a problem in each Department in demanding papers when their subject is under review, development or planning. In those cases requests for papers were dismissed if they related to future plans, unless the Minister decided to make them available. Presumably the Executive would have no more power than a Committee to call for people and papers. Is that correct? Mr P Robinson: An Executive would be entitled to see the papers. Mr McFarland: The suggestion last time was that a Minister might not produce papers because it would allow other parties to interfere or to steal his or her thunder in the development of smart policies. That prevented Committees from seeing papers; if they had, all the parties would have seen what a Minister was up to. That no longer applies, because the four parties in the Executive will see what is going on. Mr Ford: The four parties, potentially. Mr P Robinson: There could be three. Mr McFarland: There could be two. Mr Ford: In which case there would be three. Mr McFarland: However, a party that was not in the Executive could not see what was going on in it, even though that party was on a relevant Committee. If a Minister is beavering away in his or her Department developing policies, can other Ministers ask to see what he or she is working on because they think that the said Minister may be stealing a march on them with some cunning plans from which the Minister or his or her party will benefit? Will other Ministers want to see what a Minister is working on so that they can head him off at the pass? Is that what we are talking about? Or are we talking about what happened in the past when someone wanted to see papers but was refused? 3.15 pm Mr Ford: Alan’s view is so passé; it is 1998 thinking. We live in an era of sweetness and light. I sit at this end of the table and hear assurances of eternal love and devotion being conveyed among the four parties that expect to be in the Executive. There is no question of that scenario happening, Alan. If a body is supposed to be operating as an Executive, it should operate as one. Ministers should not do their own thing in their private fiefdoms; the Executive should operate as a Committee. If the system of Government that Alan describes is insisted upon, it is our job — not that of other Ministers in the Executive — to be the Opposition. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There does not appear to be any objection in principle to Seán’s suggestion. Dr Farren: I was talking exclusively about operations in the Executive and the Assembly. Ministerial papers relating to matters under discussion in a particular Department may concern work in progress. Committees may be able to obtain more up-to-date papers now under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 than they could in the past. However, the Executive may need to call papers — and perhaps people — to enable them to deal with an issue comprehensibly and not be forestalled in doing so by the decision of a Minister to withhold such papers. Mr P Robinson: Some legal issues flow from that. For instance, a Minister is not allowed to see the ministerial papers of a predecessor. Dr Farren: That is correct. Mr P Robinson: How different is looking over the shoulder of a predecessor from looking over the shoulder of a Minister who is in an adjacent office? Mr McFarland: People could be in Government together and have a vested interest in protecting one another, as David suggested earlier; however, experience shows us that parties will seek advantage where possible. If a Minister is developing a cunning plan for a new strategy, and the rest of the guys can head him or her off at the pass before the strategy is released, that will happen; or at least one of them will attempt to do so. Mr P Robinson: Do you mean that they will announce it before it is released? Mr McFarland: Yes. When I was on the Committee for Regional Development, we tried — The Chairman (Mr Wells): Was this in relation to free public transport? Mr McFarland: You were there, Chairman. We tried to investigate issues but we were told to go away, because we were not entitled to see the cunning plan that was about to be unleashed by the Minister at the time. Mr Murphy: We can all tell our regional development problems. Dr Farren: Chairman, let us not wander too far from the proposal. Mr Poots: That is why it is useful to have poacher turned gamekeeper. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Seán, I am sure that the proposal will be subject to the legal constraints for such activity. Dr Farren: I think that members readily agree to the principle of the proposal, so we should not have to spend too much time going round the table. Mr P Robinson: I am not sure whether the Executive would have a right to see the ponderings of a Department. However, if the Executive are considering a particular issue on which they have the power to make a collective decision, they need, and are entitled to, the same information as a Minister in order to do so. Mr Murphy: Generally, the details and protocols will be worked out in the discussion about a new ministerial code, which would then be put to the Assembly. The principle is largely agreed; the detail may be worth further discussion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus on the principle of what Seán is seeking? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There are five votes for the principle, so there is no need for a formal count. Does Seán, or anyone else, want to raise any other issues? Members indicated dissent. We can now call a halt to discussions on strand one issues as they appear in the St Andrews Agreement and move on to strands two and three, starting with paragraph 19 in annex A. Some matters may be relatively routine and others more difficult. We need to consider the proposals for the establishment of a review group and whether there should be provisions in the legislation for that. Paragraph 19 in annex A of the St Andrews Agreement relates to the North/South Ministerial Council and various bodies. Who wants to lead off the discussion? Mr Murphy: I will start. There has been some discussion about strand two issues. In 2002, the NSMC was already reviewing the number of implementation bodies and their remit. My understanding is that, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, and perhaps in legislation as well, there is a requirement for at least six implementation bodies. Although a case cannot, therefore, be made for fewer bodies, a case may be made for changes to their functions and scope. The experience of some of the bodies would lend itself to a serious argument for an enhanced scope. That is my understanding, though others may wish to differ. The NSMC was already engaged in this exercise. Paragraph 19 refers specifically to the work of the Lights Agency and to the possible replacement of that body. Perhaps Seán, who was a participant in the NSMC at the time, can clarify whether it was engaged in a general review of the implementation bodies. I understand that the lower limit of six implementation bodies and six areas of co-operation means that the number could be reviewed only upwards. Mr P Robinson: It is suggested that a case cannot be made for fewer than six implementation bodies; in fact, I could make a very good case for that. I return to the purpose of such bodies. The DUP has indicated that it has no objections to co-operation on matters that are mutually advantageous and that improve the way of life for people both in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic. That makes sense, but co-operation must be for a practical purpose. During the last debate on that subject, both Sinn Féin and the SDLP confessed that the purpose of those bodies was political rather than practical, and Hansard records their admissions. That is the issue for unionists. We will not encourage any increase in the number of bodies, because it would simply be for a political purpose to try to move towards an ideology that those parties have and that we do not share. If there is a practical argument, bring it to us and we will see which one should be replaced. We already know of instances where bodies are scrounging around looking for work to stay in existence; there is no real practical purpose for their existence whatsoever. Dr Farren: It is a bit late in the day to go back over all that we said previously on these issues. I openly and honestly acknowledged that the North/South dimension to these issues was something that had — in the fairly general sense in which the word can be understood — an ideological underpinning for the SDLP, and it might well be shared to some extent by Sinn Féin as well. Indeed, others may share some of our aspirations. That is not to say that the practical forms that co-operation take do not have to meet the test of practicality. I argued, when the bodies were set up, that it would be with that test in mind, and that throughout the work of the bodies that test would be met. Suspension has caused problems by impeding the development of those bodies that would otherwise have taken place. One part of a North/South body that has not met the test is the Irish Lights element of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCILC). There is a general commitment that the existing Irish Lights function should be replaced. However, the reason that the FCILC was not able to meet the test had more to do with the statutes underpinning it than with any practical matter. I reject the general way in which it was said that the bodies were set up for ideological reasons. That proposition is ludicrous. I would not subscribe to it, and the SDLP would certainly not subscribe to it in the way it has been characterised by Peter’s language. The SDLP is ready to look at the way in which the bodies operate. It has never said that bodies cannot be replaced, and remains committed to six — as the agreement says. If there is a need for others — [Interruption.] Mr P Robinson: It does not say that. Dr Farren: The agreement does. Mr Murphy: Strand two, paragraph 9. Mr P Robinson: I think you had better read it again. Dr Farren: “at least 6 matters for co-operation —”. Mr P Robinson: Six matters for co-operation. Dr Farren: “ — and implementation in each of the following categories: (i) Matters where existing bodies will be the appropriate mechanisms for co-operation in each separate jurisdiction; (ii) Matters where the co-operation will take place through agreed implementation bodies on a cross-border or all-island level.” That is how we understand the situation. I accept that in the course of any review, parties may propose to change that. However, the agreement outlines how we should operate, and if there are compelling arguments for significant changes, let us hear those arguments and let us not accuse each other of wanting things for the sake of it. I reject that accusation, and it cannot be sustained. Mr P Robinson: There is no requirement to have six implementation bodies, and if anybody wants to look at the text in the Belfast Agreement, it is on page 12. Paragraph 9 refers to: “at least 6 matters for co-operation and implementation”. It does not say that those six matters have to be dealt with by six separate implementation bodies. The agreement says that there must be implementation bodies but there is nothing to stop us from putting the work of two or three of those implementation bodies into one implementation body. Neither the Belfast Agreement nor the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires six implementation bodies. Mr McFarland: Paragraph 12 in strand two of the Belfast Agreement clearly states: “Any further development of these arrangements to be by agreement in the Council and with the specific endorsement of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Oireachtas”. Section 55(2)(e) of the 1998 Act says that the Assembly will make any: “consequential or supplementary provisions, including provisions amending or repealing Northern Ireland legislation”. Therefore, it is in the Assembly’s power to agree or disagree on any developments and, since the Democratic Unionist Party will be required to do the agreeing or disagreeing, matters are within its control. The NSMC — on which the Assembly will have ministerial representation — will decide whether there should be more or fewer bodies, and the matter must then come before the Assembly. 3.30 pm Mr Murphy: And before the Oireachtas. Mr McFarland: Indeed. However, a degree of control is already in place that should not make the issue terribly concerning. Mr Murphy: There is no change; that is how things have always been. Mr McFarland: It is under control. The NSMC must decide whether more or fewer bodies are needed — whatever way it goes — and any proposed changes to the number of implementation bodies must come before the Assembly for agreement. Mr Murphy: Chairman, I have a different view on what paragraph 9 in strand two of the Belfast Agreement requires. That aside, implementation has always been under the control of the North/South Ministerial Council, which is answerable to the Oireachtas and the Assembly. That is how it has always been. I do not see how that will be any different under paragraph 19 in annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any other thoughts on paragraph 19? I do not believe that agreement will be reached. I noticed that, when these issues were discussed in previous Committee meetings, we decided that those required further discussion. That is always a clear indication that we — Mr McFarland: Chairman, the establishment of a review group is not to say that there should be more or fewer bodies. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I get the impression that there is even opposition to that, Alan. Mr McFarland: Opposition to a review? Mr Murphy: My point is that the North/South Ministerial Council was already conducting a review in 2002. Paragraph 19 of annex A effectively sets out that which was already happening under existing safeguards. In my view, paragraph 19 is not necessary. Mr Ford: Was the 2002 review a complete review of all North/South implementation bodies? I thought that it was focusing on the problem with the Commissioners of Irish Lights. Mr Murphy: If the review was focusing on the Commissioners of Irish Lights, it was doing so on the basis of the understanding at that time, which was that there would be six implementation bodies. If the Commissioners of Irish Lights were to have been done away with, the focus would have been on creating at least one additional body. Mr Ford: Strictly, it not a body in its own right but part of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. Mr McFarland: However, eight years down the line — Mr P Robinson: It would have left nothing worth having after the agency had gone. Mr Murphy: A much better body could be created. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any proposals on paragraph 19? Mr P Robinson: It has been shown that there is an argument for reducing the number of North/South bodies. We were told that such an argument could not be made. There is, and there is no legal reason why the number of North/South bodies cannot be reduced. It is important to bear that in mind. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you want to make that proposal or just put your view on record? Mr P Robinson: I have a little suspicion that there may not be overall support for a proposal. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You could be right. Are there any other proposals or suggestions? Mr McFarland: Chairman, the suggestion is that there will be a review. The question is whether we allow what was happening to continue or have some form of review group to examine the implementation bodies after eight years. Although I have no hard and fast view either way, it would make sense to examine the issues, particularly those in respect of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. In broad terms, our input to the NSMC and the Assembly can control matters. The number of implementation bodies cannot be shifted up or down until the Assembly agrees to it. People can argue in favour of reductions or increases, but, ultimately, either argument must achieve agreement in the Assembly. Dr Farren: It is clear from the St Andrews Agreement that the Irish Government are prepared to engage in the discussion. Therefore, it seems sensible that, given the time lapse since the Assembly’s previous existence, we should participate in any kind of review. Have a review, but some people are saying that the review must lead to a reduction in the number of bodies, or an increase. Certainly, I am in favour of expanding the work of the NSMC, although I will not be prescriptive and say that that must be the review’s terms of reference. Let us hear the arguments, consider the value for money and be sensible about the issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will now move to vote on paragraph 19 of annex A, which Alan says is simply a review, but it could be more or less than that. Mr P Robinson: I am not worried about the issue being reviewed. The directions of my thoughts are towards reducing the number of bodies. Mr McFarland: I am content for a review group to be established. Mr Ford: I am also content. Unionists must recognise that this is a political issue and not purely a practical one, as seen in 1998. Nationalists must also realise that it does not necessarily mean that they can produce a shopping list. Dr Farren: I am content for a review group to be established. I hope that David’s remarks were not directed at the SDLP. Mr Murphy: I am also content. First, the case for additional bodies would be well made; secondly, this is a merely a continuation of what happened under the same regulations that would have been carried out. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have consensus? Mr McFarland: It sounds like consensus to me. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have reached agreement twice in a row. This is extraordinary. Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are doing well, let us keep going. We now move to the next item, which relates to paragraph 20 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. It concerns the scrutiny of implementation bodies by the Assembly and the Oireachtas. Mr McFarland: Hear, hear. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Chairs and CEOs of North/South bodies would report to the Assembly at least yearly. That was agreed at the Committee, and, as I recall, there were no problems with it. There was a great deal of support for it. Mr Poots: It was not perfect prior to this. Mr Murphy: The power was there, but I do not think that it was used. The power exists in the Oireachtas. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members content? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We now move to paragraph 21 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement, which concerns the North/South parliamentary forum. Paragraph 21 states that the Executive would encourage Assembly parties to set up a North/South parliamentary forum. That does not require any legislation. The Committee did not take a view on this. It simply encourages Assembly parties; it is not mandatory. What are members’ views? Mr P Robinson: What are we talking about? Is this the forum that already exists? Mr McFarland: Paragraph 18 of strand two of the Belfast Agreement states: “The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Oireachtas to consider developing a joint parliamentary forum, bringing together equal numbers from both institutions for discussion of matters of mutual interest and concern.” The difficulty for unionists is that if the number of nationalists in the Assembly is added to the number of nationalists in the Oireachtas, unionism would be massively outnumbered on this body. Mr Ford: So? Mr McFarland: At the moment, the proposal seems ambitious, given the delicacy of concern on everything else that we do. The Assembly had a vote on the Floor of the House to establish a forum, but decided not to pursue it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): This is merely a request that the Assembly revisit the issue. Mr McFarland: No, this will put it into legislation. The Assembly voted against it on the Floor of the House. This will introduce legislation so that the Executive must establish a forum. Mr A Maginness: It is not legislative. Mr Murphy: It is a stronger provision that was in the Good Friday Agreement, but the provision in the agreement was not acted upon. I do not think that it was even considered. Mr McFarland: It went to a vote on the Floor of the House. Mr Murphy: It was blocked at first base. Mr McFarland: It was voted against in a democratic vote on the Floor of the House. Mr Poots: The decision remains with the Assembly. Mr McFarland: No, the proposal in paragraph 21 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement gives that power to the Executive. Is that right? Mr Poots: No. Mr P Robinson: The proposal asks the Executive to encourage the Assembly to establish the forum. The Assembly would still take the decision. Mr McFarland: OK. Mr Murphy: It depends whether people are genuine in their encouragement. Mr P Robinson: Unless a Northern Ireland Executive is in existence, how could one say whether it is to encourage anyone to do anything? Mr McFarland: Do we expect this proposal to appear anywhere in legislation? Mr Murphy: No. I must say that you will find more friends in the Oireachtas than you might think. Mr McFarland: We know. [Laughter.] Dr Farren: You have labelled half of the Oireachtas as unionists. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): What are we going to do about paragraph 21 of annex A? Mr McFarland: Note it. Mr Murphy: We support the proposition that the Executive encourage the Assembly to establish a North/South parliamentary forum. That is an improvement from what was in the Good Friday Agreement. Mr P Robinson: The proposal should state that the Northern Ireland Executive be asked to encourage the Assembly to establish the forum. I do not think that one can take an executive decision when the Executive is not even in place. Mr McFarland: Perhaps the Executive should be asked to consider the matter. The paragraph in the Belfast Agreement uses the term “consider developing”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are you proposing that the Executive be asked to consider encouraging the Assembly to establish the forum? Mr McFarland: No, I am proposing that the Executive consider developing a forum. Mr Ford: Peter’s suggestion is that the Executive encourage the Assembly to establish a forum, rather than simply asking the Executive to consider encouraging the Assembly to do so. Mr McFarland: No. The Executive should be asked to consider the establishment of a North/South parliamentary forum. That reflects what the Belfast Agreement said. Mr P Robinson: The St Andrews document is an agreement between two Governments, so they should state that the Executive should do something. Until an Executive exists, one cannot say that the Executive would do it. Mr Poots: In any event, it is the Assembly that will make the decision. Mr Murphy: I remind members that, in respect of paragraph 10 of annex A, we decided that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would reach an agreement on their functions, regardless of whether we know who is going to take those posts. Paragraph 21 of annex A is consistent with that, if we are deciding that the Executive would encourage the Assembly. Mr P Robinson: But the Executive might not decide to do that. Mr Murphy: They might then be in default, and the exclusion mechanisms could come into play. Mr P Robinson: In that case, let us put the sanctions in place. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I do not think that there is a formal proposal on this matter. I could be wrong, but we shall take a vote on paragraph 21, which states that the Executive would encourage the Assembly parties to establish a North/South parliamentary forum. Sinn Féin? Mr Murphy: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The SDLP? Dr Farren: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Alliance Party? Mr Ford: Yes. I do not think that a consultative forum should hold any fears for unionists; I would like to see them sorting out Fianna Fáil. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Ulster Unionists? Mr McFarland: It should be a matter for the Assembly. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that a no? Mr McFarland: To what? The Chairman (Mr Wells): To paragraph 21 as it stands. Mr McFarland: We would be relaxed on that matter. In broad terms, the Belfast Agreement states that the Assembly should consider the matter. There is no need to debate this matter here. When the Assembly is ready to vote that it needs such a forum, it will do so. This matter does not need to be addressed here at all. The answer is no. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The DUP? Mr P Robinson: No. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We shall summarise the vote. The Committee Clerk: Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party said yes; the UUP and the DUP said no. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We move to the next issue. Again, I will allow an opportunity for comment if any member feels that we have missed anything. We have been galloping along. We turn to the question of an independent consultative forum. We need to decide whether the Committee is content with the proposals outlined in paragraph 22 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement, and whether they require provision in legislation. Mr P Robinson: Could we just take the vote? Mr McFarland: This is simply the Civic Forum on an all-Ireland basis, and members heard our comments about interacting with civic society. If a call must be made on this matter, consideration should be given to the establishment of a consultative forum. That reflects the Belfast Agreement, and when the Assembly is ready to consider establishing such a body, no doubt it will do so. At the moment, this proposal would force things on the Assembly that it has not had the opportunity to examine. Mr Poots: Given the last Civic Forum that we endured, no one should want to replicate that body in any form, never mind on a North/South basis. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I detect some resistance to my right. Mr Murphy: Some cynicism. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What about members to my left? Mr Murphy: We are content with the proposition. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do the SDLP members have any thoughts on this matter? Dr Farren: We support paragraph 22 of annex A. Mr Ford: There are problems with the prescriptive wording. A North/South consultative forum implies a civic forum on a north/south basis with all the problems that unionists witnessed in the Civic Forum. We should support North/South consultative mechanisms where relevant. We have already highlighted areas in which civic society might feed in better to Committees than through the Civic Forum structure. The mechanics of those structures need to be reviewed. Paragraph 22 does not address that. The principle of supporting North/South co-operation amongst civic society to parallel the other aspects of north/south co-operation with which we are involved seems entirely reasonable. 3.45 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): So, is that a yes? Mr Ford: It is no to the precise wording, but yes to the principle. Mr Murphy: That will do for now. Mr Poots: So it is no then. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There are two noes on my right; I am certain of that. Mr A Maginness: I think that it is a maybe. Mr Murphy: Two noes and a yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That brings us to the end of the discussion on paragraph 22. It is quite clear that the Committee will be able to complete its business. Even if we run past 4.00 pm, I think that we will be able to finish, and we will not have to meet tomorrow morning. If we do conclude business, members could perhaps let their colleagues know that they will not have to turn up tomorrow. The next issue was raised by the DUP. Paragraph 23 refers to a secretariat for the British-Irish Council. Both Governments would facilitate a standing secretariat if members agree. This matter does not require legislation. Mr McFarland: This was an issue during the 2002 review. There has been no secretariat to support the BIC. Most people broadly agreed that in order for it to function, the BIC really needs a secretariat. There was some discussion by Sinn Féin on a political point, but by and large it was fairly obvious. Mr Murphy: It is almost like the reverse discussion on the implementation bodies. [Interruption.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a landline ringing; not a mobile phone. I can tell the difference. This item did not provoke huge controversy, so we can move to a vote unless anyone feels hard done by. We shall go around the table. How does the DUP feel? Mr P Robinson: Is this a vote on the British-Irish Council? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, it is a vote to establish a secretariat. Mr P Robinson: Yes. Mr Ford: Yes. Dr Farren: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What about Sinn Féin? Mr McFarland: Ah you will. Mr Murphy: We abstain. Mr McFarland: You will, you will, you will. Mr Murphy: That is an advance on our last position. Mr McFarland: It is; it is a major advance. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The SDLP said yes, and Sinn Féin abstained. Mr Murphy: It is conditional on the DUP agreeing additional implementation bodies. [Laughter.] Mr P Robinson: So that is a no. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will move on to the east-west inter-parliamentary framework, which is covered by paragraph 24. Mr Murphy: It is on the basis of efficiency and effectiveness. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee put this item down for further consideration, which is always the warning signal that it could not reach agreement. Paragraph 24 states that both: “Governments would encourage the Oireachtas, the British Parliament and the relevant elected institutions to approve an East-West Inter-parliamentary Framework”. Mr McFarland: During the last Assembly, there was a desire to do that. The Committee for Regional Development got caught up in it when the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body (BIIPB) visited Northern Ireland to discuss transport issues. The unionists on the Regional Development Committee felt unable to do so because the existing body takes its genesis from the Anglo-Irish Agreement. At that stage, we asked the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to begin negotiations with the Government to consider whether the BIIPB could move into a format, which is described in the St Andrews Agreement, in which all of the different agencies are involved in one body. The difficulty is that members of the BIIPB are selected by their parties, and the body is therefore not open to all Assembly Members, MPs, etc. The proposal seems to be quite a sensible idea, which was around during the last Assembly. Most Members were comfortable with it apart from one or two. Mr Murphy: Would such a body run in parallel with the BIIPB or replace it? Mr McFarland: It would replace it, because it would involve all the new bodies. Mr P Robinson: It would make things more inclusive. Mr McFarland: Absolutely. Mr Murphy: I presume that the “relevant elected institutions” would be Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man. Is that correct? Mr McFarland: Yes; the Isle of Man. Mr P Robinson: And the Channel Islands. Mr McFarland: It is one of those organisations in which everyone takes part. Mr Murphy: And would that be in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness? Mr McFarland: No — inclusiveness. Mr Murphy: Sorry. [Laughter.] Mr McFarland: The British Isles. Mr Murphy: Does that trump efficiency and effectiveness? Mr Poots: It is back to the old United Kingdom. [Laughter.] Dr Farren: Yes; that was on Monday night. Alban Maginness and David Ford were present as well. I enjoyed the company of people from places as far apart as the Channel Islands and Scotland, and other places in between. It seems that the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, which hosted the occasion in Belfast city hall, has gradually grown to embrace — I do not know how formally — representatives from those places. I see no reason, in the fullness of time, for that body not to be able to formally embrace all of us as well. Mr McFarland: The essence of this debate is that the body should take its genesis from the Belfast Agreement, and not from the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. Dr Farren: I know that. Despite the fact that this place came out of the Anglo-Irish agreement that was reached in 1921, I am here talking to people like you. [Laughter.] We did not agree to that then — at least our predecessors did not agree to it. Mr Poots: I did not think of that one. Dr Farren: Let us not get too fussy about the origin of — Mr P Robinson: I will use that line some time in the future if someone tells me that this body flows from the Belfast Agreement. [Laughter.] Mr McFarland: Let us not be fussy about that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What do members think about paragraph 24 of annex A? Mr Ford: If the proposal is merely a mechanism to spare unionist embarrassment over the genesis of the BIIPB — given that the new body is effectively going to be the BIIPB, which, as already has been said, includes Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, and the devolved institutions — then let us spare them that embarrassment. We will remind them, but we will spare them the embarrassment. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I think that that is a yes. Mr A Maginness: You always stick the boot in. [Laughter.] Mr Ford: Alan asked twice to be spared embarrassment. I am trying to respond in kind. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I shall go round the table for views on paragraph 24 of annex A. Sinn Féin? Mr Murphy: Were unionists not engaged with the BIIPB in Kerry? Mr P Robinson: That was Killarney. Mr Murphy: Killarney is in Kerry. Mr P Robinson: Was that where I was? [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): You were getting a tour of the Irish Republic. [Laughter.] Mr Murphy: He was going to open up a DUP branch office. Sinn Féin will advance our position on this matter and abstain. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What about the SDLP? Dr Farren: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Alliance Party? Mr Ford: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The DUP? Mr P Robinson: Yes, and I will get my map out and find out where Killarney is. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any other issues? Mr McFarland: I am loath to raise this issue again, but is it possible to get even a brief heads-up on how other parties will deal with law-and-order matters? Has that been put off until the Assembly is up and running? Mr P Robinson: I think that Alan was absent when that matter was discussed fairly fully. Mr McFarland: We discussed that matter on Monday, it has been discussed today, and discussions will no doubt continue. Mr P Robinson: First thing tomorrow morning, when the Hansard report is available, you will be able to read it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We had a rather difficult debate on that matter and did not actually progress too far on it. It was on the Pledge of Office, and we did not reach agreement. Mr McFarland: I am talking about the detail that, at some stage, must be agreed. Is that matter being left until the Assembly gets up and running? In that case, the law and order format of this Committee will have to meet and discuss that matter at some stage, if it is not free to do so now. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is not time-bound to the same extent as strand-one matters. Mr McFarland: I understand that. I was just trying to get a feel for whether parties wished to address the matter quickly, or were content to leave it until March 2007 or after the Assembly is up and running. Mr P Robinson: Are you talking about the Pledge of Office? Mr McFarland: No; I am talking about the detail of the institutional models, because there was a list of matters that were parked during discussions of the law and order format of this Committee. Mr P Robinson: We have years to talk about those matters. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We could reconstitute the policing and justice format of the Committee on the Preparation for Government, but that is not urgent at the moment. Mr McFarland: That is fine. I was just wondering whether I should put colleagues on standby to appear. Mr Ford: The Committee could meet at the same time as the Ard-Fheis. The Chairman (Mr Wells): As a result of the diligence that members have shown today, your prize is that there will be no meeting tomorrow. However, that also means that there will be no lunch. I must say that the lunch was extremely well prepared today — it was excellent. The fact that there is no meeting also means that I can attend my daughter’s school prize-giving day, for which I am very appreciative. Our next meeting will be on Monday 30 October at 2.00 pm. At that meeting, we must discuss the Committee’s response to the Secretary of State. We hope for the draft response to be sent to members on Friday. We also hope that we will have been sent all those letters that reveal the side deals and private communications that the Secretary of State had with the various parties. Dr Farren: What if all those papers turn out just to be minutes and notes of conversations? Mr McFarland: My guess is that we will receive nothing. All the parties will say that the Secretary of State is not prepared to release their stuff. Dr Farren: Might we be told that nothing is coming back from the Secretary of State, Chairman? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am not a betting man, Seán. Mr P Robinson: Could we be more careful please when minuting the meeting? When I do a sneering laugh, that does not mean that I have agreed to something. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will give £50 to your favourite charity if we get anything back, Seán. [Laughter.] Mr P Robinson: If members knew Jim better, they would know just how sure he must be. Dr Farren: What if I were to tell you that my favourite charity is the united Ireland fund? [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): Seán, I said what I did with the same certainty with which I told my staff that, if I won the South Down seat in the general election, I would take them all over to Westminster for lunch. That is how certain I am. Ladies and gentlemen, there is no more business. As I said, we are spot on time-wise, so I thank members for making the meeting, at least in that respect, a great success. Mr Murphy: Is Monday’s business to formally go over what we have covered on Monday and today? The Committee Clerk: We are to agree the draft response to the Secretary of State. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are not producing a report. In order to speed things up, we will write a letter to the Secretary of State. We are right back on schedule, as far as our deadline is concerned. Dr Farren: Could the meeting be put back until 2.30 pm on Monday? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. It should not last that long. I am not sure who will be chairing Monday’s meeting, but it could be me. Adjourned at 3.57 pm. |