Committee on the
Preparation for Government

Wednesday 21 June 2006

Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings:
The Chairmen, Mr Francie Molloy and Mr Jim Wells
Mr John Dallat
Dr SeánFarren
Mr David Ford
Mr Danny Kennedy
Mrs Naomi Long
Dr William McCrea
Mr Alan McFarland
Mr Nelson McCausland
Mr David McNarry
Mr Alban Maginness
Mr Alex Maskey
Mr Maurice Morrow
Mr Conor Murphy
Mr Seamus Neeson
Mr John O’Dowd
Mr Ian Paisley Jnr
Ms Margaret Ritchie

The Committee met at 10.06 am.

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

The Chairman (Mr Wells): All parties are represented, so we can start with the preliminaries.

First, this is not a new meeting. This is a resumption of yesterday’s meeting. We will continue the questioning today.

Some members may not be aware that there is a Business Committee meeting at 12.00 noon. I understand that at least half of this Committee are involved in that in one way or another, so we will adjourn at 12.00 noon for that meeting, which will be in the usual room. I propose that we resume when the Business Committee has finished or at 1.30 pm, whichever is later.

Mr Murphy: I understand from the Business Committee yesterday, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that there was provision made for a 12.30 pm meeting if it was deemed necessary and that we would be informed during the day whether that was required. It is not exactly clear whether there will be a Business Committee meeting.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I understand that there will definitely be a meeting at noon. That has come directly from the Speaker’s Office. I became aware of that only 10 minutes ago. Unless you hear otherwise, take it that we will have to adjourn, as so many of us are involved in that. Does that cause anyone difficulties?

Mr Dallat: Chairman, the only difficulty is that we have not been told about this meeting at 12.00 noon.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I can ask Mrs Dunwoody to check, but that is the word from Mrs Bell.

Mr Dallat: That would make sense.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): If there is any change, I will inform members, but take it as read that we adjourn at 12.00 noon. We will come back at 1.30 pm, not at the end of the Business Committee meeting, which may last only half an hour. There is a very nice lunch provided at the Business Committee, but of course not everybody will have the opportunity to avail of that.

Mr Ford: Is that an invitation?

Mr Paisley Jnr: Mr Deputy Speaker, may I make a statement, please?

At the last meeting of this Committee that I attended, a very serious slander was made against me.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Paisley, I will give you an opportunity to make your statement. I just want to complete the procedural arrangements, and then I will come straight to you. Is that OK?

Yesterday, there was a long series of intensive questions to Mr McCrea and Mr Ford. Both have assured me that they are none the worse for the experience. Therefore, to be fair to everyone, today we will allow exactly the same latitude in the intensity of the questioning of each member who presents.

I understand that Dr Farren will present for the SDLP and Mr Murphy will present on behalf of Sinn Féin. We may only get through the SDLP and Sinn Féin presentations today, but if questions flag and it is apparent that we may be able to get all five parties finished today, we will attempt to do that. We will know as things develop.

I also remind members about mobile phones. Before Hansard started recording, mobile phones did not present a difficulty when on silent or vibrate mode. Now there is a difficulty when they are on at all, particularly if they are close to the microphones. So, either turn them off completely, please, or else set them well back from the microphones if you wish to take messages, texts and e-mails. When we break, I will check with Hansard staff to see if those arrangements are working.

I am sorry, Mr Paisley; I interrupted you.

Mr Kennedy: Sorry, Chairman. Is there any indication yet as to what the Committee is likely to do or if there will be any further discussions for the remainder of the week?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank you for raising that issue. I should have pointed out one other procedural matter. Today, I will chair the morning session, and the other Deputy Speaker, Mr Molloy, will chair the afternoon session. Should we meet tomorrow, we will reverse those roles, just in case anyone feels that there is an imbalance there.

Mr McFarland: Does that indicate that the Deputy Speakers’ enthusiasm is flagging?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): No. Unfortunately, I have a very important meeting this afternoon, and I will be slated in the local press if I do not attend. Mrs Dunwoody has kindly organised alternative cover, and it is hoped that the balance will be resumed tomorrow. I am sure that the Committee will be happy enough if, as long it is balanced, we continue to do things that way. Yesterday was absolutely fascinating; every word was extremely interesting. The Deputy Speaker is not flagging.

Mr Kennedy: Your nose is getting longer.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Kennedy has reminded me that this is the longest day of the year. Let us hope that it is not the longest meeting of the Committee.

Are we agreed that if we do not finish the questioning today, we should not begin the next presentation? If we are not going to complete it today, we will not start it. Are we happy enough to meet tomorrow? Does that cause Members any practical difficulties?

Mr Morrow: Every day causes us practical difficulties.

Mr Ford: For some of us, tomorrow morning might be possible, but tomorrow afternoon and Friday are very difficult, given that we will have had three intensive days of meetings this week.

Dr McCrea: We do have constituency work to do.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus that tomorrow morning is a possibility, but tomorrow afternoon and Friday are completely out? Is that the general view?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I think that in sitting for three and a half days we will have given it a fair crack of the whip this week. There is consensus on tomorrow morning only.

Dr McCrea: If it is necessary to finish off the presentations.

Mr Kennedy: If we could complete all the parties’ presentations today, we could avoid sitting tomorrow.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Looking at yesterday’s events, that is unlikely. We have to give the same latitude to all the parties as we did yesterday.

I understand that Mr Paisley wishes to make a statement, and, therefore, I feel that it is appropriate for me to read on to the record the paragraph on privilege in the Northern Ireland Act 2006, which covers both the Assembly and this Committee. Under paragraph 6 of schedule 1 to the 2006 Act:

“A written or oral statement made by a member in or for the purposes of the Assembly is to be privileged from action for defamation unless it is proved to have been made with malice.”

That privilege also extends to meetings of this Committee. Members should note, however, that privilege does not extend to press conferences or to statements made to the press.

Mr Paisley Jnr: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In this Committee on Friday, a very serious slander was made against my colleague and me. I know that my colleague has had the opportunity to speak to the Committee since then. I have not, and, as I understand that the minutes of that meeting are disputed, I want to reiterate that I reject totally and absolutely the slanderous allegations made by Martin McGuinness. I note that Martin McGuinness in not in his place today. As is the traditional form of the IRA, he has run away. He is obviously not prepared to face the issues.

You have read a statement about the issue of privilege and how it operates within these confines. Someone who makes a statement that, if it were printed, would be a criminal libel, would obviously be expected to back that allegation up with hard evidence that proves that, in his words, there was a determined effort to have him killed, and that certain people were part of that effort.

I would like to know whether Sinn Féin has any evidence to that effect. If so, I believe it is obliged to present that evidence of a crime to the Police Service of this country. Sinn Féin would be obliged to present it at this Committee to back up the claims that it made. I do not believe that it has any evidence, because I know the claims to be slanderous and untruthful. Given that that is the case, there is only one interpretation that I can put on the claims that have been made, and that is that those claims have been made in a malicious way and for a malicious reason.

10.15 am

If Martin “Malicious” McGuinness were prepared to be a man and be here to defend his comments, prove his point and present the evidence, then perhaps we could have this argument not only in this place but in another place.

However, the fact that he is not here — and I doubt that his party will even try to defend his comments or demonstrate that it has evidence for them — means that only one conclusion can be drawn: that his comments were malicious and that they were made solely from that position. It is incumbent upon him to admit that those comments were malicious, to admit that they were a lie, and to withdraw them.

I note that he has not taken up the challenge issued to him at the Committee meeting to repeat his comments outside this room. He has run away from doing that, obviously because he has no evidence to back up his claims. Therefore, I reiterate that his comments were made from solely a malicious position. It is important that the Committee notes that, and I look forward to seeing whether there is any response whatsoever from him or from any of his sidekicks.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Paisley, your comments are now on the record. We also gave an opportunity yesterday for Mr McCrea to make his comments. This is not a matter for the Committee; it is a matter for the individuals concerned. The rules of sub judice apply, and because of that, and in the interests of caution, I do not intend to allow it to become an issue for discussion.

Mr McCrea, I see that you are trying to get my attention.

Dr McCrea: It is in many ways a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Why did the Chairman not protect me and Mr Paisley Jnr? Under Standing Orders, the Chairman is there to protect Members. In any debating chamber in which I have been, and certainly in the House of Commons, the Speaker calls a person to order or asks them to withdraw their comments. Why was the protection of the Chairman not granted to me when such a malicious statement was made? I request that Martin McGuinness does clear up the matter.

It was said here. You say that it is not a matter for the Committee. The malicious slander was said in the Committee, and if there is evidence it should be brought to this Committee. I assure you that the reason he cannot bring evidence is that there is none. Therefore, the malicious nature of it is established, and I hope at least that the person who made the comments will have the guts to come and withdraw them.

It is serious, but, sad to say, I had no protection whatsoever from the Chairman. I ask Madam Speaker to look into the matter, as the Deputy Speakers are there to protect the members of this Committee.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Could I just point out that although the Chairmen of this Committee are both Deputy Speakers, when we are in the Chair we are bound by the same rules that apply to all Chairmen, rather than by those that apply to Deputy Speakers in the Chamber. Different rules apply.

Mr McCrea, you have raised a point, which we will refer to Madam Speaker, on your views of the protection that was given to you. I will refer that to her and, hopefully, report back at the next meeting.

If anyone is going to repeat the allegations or comment specifically on them, I will have to stop them.

Mr Paisley Jnr: I do not wish to comment on the allegations per se; I want to ask a question regarding something you said. You said that it was no longer a matter for this Committee because matters were sub judice. What draws the issue of sub judice to your attention?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): An impression was given by members of the Democratic Unionist Party that this may well end up in the courts under defamation.

Mr Paisley Jnr: But the matter is not sub judice until it is in the courts.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Speaker, on the Floor of the Assembly, ruled that if there was a likelihood or possibility of something coming before the courts we should exercise caution and not debate it in Committee or in the Assembly. On that basis we are proceeding with considerable care.

Mr Paisley Jnr: I do want clarification. If the Member has the bottle to come back here and has the guts to withdraw his slanderous comments, would you allow that to take place?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. The clear direction from the Speaker is that we would allow Mr McGuinness the opportunity to do that. We will seek the direction of the Speaker on that issue.

I will permit Mr Murphy to speak if it relates to procedure, but if he wants to speak about the actual comments I will not allow it.

Mr Murphy: It is procedural; it is a question for Mr McCrea. He talks about the protection of the Chairman in relation to comments that were made, but was he called to order by the Speaker of the House of Commons when he made the initial allegations against Martin McGuinness that sparked this whole conversation? Was he told that he was out of order, or was he challenged or asked to withdraw those remarks? In relation to Ian Paisley Jnr’s comments about bottle and guts — I will ignore the provocation. His father has made a career out of naming people under privilege in the House of Commons.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are in grave danger of drifting into areas that are not the responsibility of this Committee. Is everyone content with the procedure that has been adopted on this? It will be referred to the Speaker. Mr Paisley Jnr and Mr McCrea have had a full opportunity to refute. If Mr McGuinness, at a subsequent Committee meeting, decides to take the opportunity to withdraw the allegations, he will be given that opportunity. Is everyone happy?

We have received confirmation that there will be a Business Committee meeting at 12.00 noon in Room 106. The usual arrangements apply. I think that will involve the bulk of this Committee in one shape or another.

Yesterday we received evidence from the Alliance Party and the Democratic Unionist Party. The procedure that we have adopted is alphabetical order, so the next party to give evidence is Sinn Féin. Mr Murphy has indicated that he is giving evidence on behalf of Sinn Féin. I note that one of his representatives is not here. Does he wish to continue in his absence?

Mr Murphy: Yes.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Murphy, you have up to 20 minutes to give your party’s view on the paper that you presented to the Committee on Friday.

Mr Murphy: Thank you, Chairman. I do not think that it will take me 20 minutes to present the paper. We have described it as a preliminary paper, and we outlined some of the issues and some of our approach to the work of this Committee and some of the issues that the Committee could usefully get down to in preparation for the return of the devolved institutions. The title of this Committee is the Committee for Preparation for Government, and that is the direction in which we have endeavoured — through a number of propositions since the Committee first met — to get it moving.

In the context of the Hain Assembly, we have been given an initial cut-off date of the end of this month and a further cut-off date of 24 November to resolve the issues that will bring about the restoration of the institutions. Sinn Féin is firmly of the view that that can be achieved much sooner. We believe, and we have long argued — and we have put this view to other parties when we have met them and have argued it with the British Government — that the suspension legislation should have been lifted, and the Assembly could and should be restored within a matter of weeks. We have said that the Executive could be established and the North/South Ministerial Council could become fully functional. That opportunity lies before us, and there is no reason why we cannot seize it. We agreed to participate in the work of this Committee and this Assembly on the basis that their primary function be the restoration of the Executive and the institutions.

We all have a duty to work together in that regard, and this Committee provides us with an opportunity to do that. There have been a number of troublesome and trying meetings in relation to getting business done at this Committee, but nonetheless it provides an opportunity to get some work done on the issues that people feel should be addressed before the restoration of the institutions. The Committee gives an opportunity to advance some of those issues and get some work done on them.

If there is a political will among all of the parties, then there is no reason why that work cannot be completed fairly speedily, putting us in a position for an early restoration, well in advance of the 24 November deadline.

This Committee was set up to carry out the necessary preparatory work for government, not to do the work of a future Executive. Therefore, the Committee could usefully address a number of issues, which we have listed in our preliminary paper. They include the transfer of powers for policing and justice. That issue undoubtedly lies before us on the restoration of any Executive. Not only are there implications for how such powers would be exercised and what accountability mechanisms there would be, but there are implications for the creation of a Department for policing and justice, in whatever shape or form that it takes.

A number of models have been proposed for the creation of such a Department, and the Alliance Party gave its view yesterday on four of them. Its creation will have implications — whatever model we may agree to — as will the policing and justice powers that would be devolved. However, there are also implications for the rest of the Departments, given that, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, there can only be 10 Departments.

Obviously, the creation of a Department or Departments to deal with policing and justice would have an impact not only on that Department, and how those powers would be exercised, but on other Departments. We are firmly of the view that this Committee could discuss that issue and examine models for a potential Department, and also consider the knock-on implications of the transfer of policing and justice powers.

We have also identified a proper peace dividend as an issue. Others have identified, if not the same issue, then similar issues in papers submitted to the Committee on areas such as economic regeneration packages or financial packages to assist the return of devolution. We have described it as a peace dividend. Essentially, it all boils down to the same issue, which is that, given the underinvestment here for many years, the current economic situation, the widely acknowledged economic difficulties in this part of Ireland, and the lack of investment in infrastructure and other services, there is a clear need to get sustainable and stable institutions functioning here. A clear case can be made for that, and all of the parties have a clear opportunity to achieve that.

I have never heard resistance from any party to the idea of a peace dividend or a financial package. There is a clear opportunity for all parties to co-operate with one another, and with others who have an interest, to identify how such a package could be put together and the areas to which it could be directed, and to make a clear case for such a package. I regret that such an opportunity was missed when Gordon Brown visited on Monday. The party leaders could have initiated that type of work and created a climate in which the parties could have come together to do some serious work on an economic or financial package or a peace dividend.

The Committee could also usefully identify priorities for Government. There is a differentiation between that and a Programme for Government. A Programme for Government is the work of an Executive and involves a degree of interaction between Ministers and senior civil servants in Departments on current priorities, what is possible under current operational programmes, and the priorities that the parties want included.

Priorities for Government would be a useful forerunner upon restoration to guide the development of a proper Programme for Government among the parties that make up the Executive. It would provide an opportunity — particularly for the Alliance Party, which may not be part of an Executive — to have an input into what are considered the priorities for Government. It would also be a useful exercise for Members to identify their key areas.

It was often the case in the previous Assembly that priorities such as targeting social need and investment in the most vulnerable areas found favour among all parties. I do not doubt that, if we put our collective wit together, we could come up with priority themes for government that can then be readily and quickly formulated in a Programme for Government upon the restoration of the Executive.

10.30 am

Another issue that we raised here — and people may not consider it to be within the remit of a Preparation for Government Committee, but it is undoubtedly the case that anything that is done in this institution, even as it currently exists in its very vague format, has an impact on how business is conducted outside. The fact that with all our difficulties we have managed to meet, managed to get a Chairperson or Chairpersons and managed to start to get down to some of the work that was identified has a positive impact, even though people are exasperated by some of the antics that have gone on in this Assembly generally, rather than just in this Committee.

Although it may not necessarily be a part of the remit of the Preparation for Government Committee, any issue that we tackle as part of preparing for the restored institutions does have an impact on how communities interact on the ground. I do not think that anyone can dispute that our ability to create a peaceful summer, devoid of all the tensions and violence that we have had over the last number of summers, will have a significant and beneficial impact on our ability to do business if and when we come back here in the autumn.

So I think it is an area of interest for this Committee that we identify ways in which we can contribute to making our own work in the Committee easier in the autumn by engaging on what could be done in order to encourage dialogue and interaction between people over the summer, which would reduce the possibility of community tensions and violence and dispute over the summer.

Those are some of the issues we have addressed. We made an argument — and I regret that it was rejected — that although each of us here is a senior representative of our party, and we all bring to the table the issues that we feel are priorities for that party that need to be addressed in relation to returning the Executive and the institutions, undoubtedly there are within those priorities fairly specific areas of work that other members of our party and, indeed, other members of the other parties, have responsibility for.

Within the parties we can identify the spokespersons, for instance, on policing and justice matters, and we can identify the spokespersons on economic matters. There is a clear need, if we have identified those as areas of work that need to be addressed by this Committee, for us to free up those people within our parties who have responsibility and expertise on these matters to go off and do the necessary work on them, to scope and identify them, and to bring those issues with some suggestions and reports back to this Committee so that we can continue the business of preparation for Government, which is after all the name of this Committee.

There has been argument over allowing us to nominate other people to get down to more detailed work on the issues that most of us have flagged up. In our case, we have described our submission as a preliminary paper. The DUP suggested yesterday that it had further papers that go into more detail on some of the issues. With the best will in the world, while all of us have some competence in all of the issues that are being talked about here, there are others within our parties with a much greater degree of competence in these issues. There is an opportunity for people to go off to other meetings and do much more detailed work on these issues and bring back reports to us. They may well find themselves, as is normal with Committee meetings, with reports that this Committee could agree could be submitted to the Assembly for debate and discussion and the continuation of this Committee’s work.

Those are the challenges that lie ahead of us. There is an opportunity for real engagement in this Committee, but it takes all the parties to want to engage properly in the work that is preparation for Government. Other people have other issues that they have brought, that they have identified as priorities for them.

We are quite happy to discuss those priorities. If this Committee is to achieve anything more than circular discussions about various issues, and if we are to get down to addressing those issues to try to give some satisfaction and to advance other issues to a position whereby an incoming Executive is ready, with some guidance and agreement, to take those issues on board and run with them, the Committee must get down to proper work. That is the challenge, and it will take a proper political engagement and will for that to happen.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): No one has indicated to me that they wish to ask questions. Is no one else speaking on behalf of your delegation, Mr Murphy?

Mr Murphy: No. There are three of us here, and we are happy to share responses to any questions.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Dr Farren has given his name. Are there any others who wish to ask a question?

Mr McFarland: We want a go, but we were giving priority to other parties.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will start with Dr Farren, Mr Ford and Mr McFarland.

Dr Farren: Yesterday, when I was questioning the Alliance Party and the DUP, I started off with a question regarding what those parties might be able to indicate about the essential requirements that need to be met in order to enable restoration to take place. Am I right in understanding — from what Conor Murphy has said and from what is stated explicitly in paragraph 2 of Sinn Féin’s submission — that Sinn Féin does not believe that there is any essential requirement standing in the way of the immediate restoration of the Executive and the Assembly?

If that is the case, how does Sinn Féin intend to address the huge lack of confidence, given what is very obvious in here and outside? That lack of confidence has been represented acutely here by the nature of the exchanges and the atmosphere that has persisted from the beginning. In a sense, that lack of confidence is also represented by the way in which we are seated round this table, between the upper end of this side of the table and the other side of the table. Confidence is needed before parties on that side of the table would be ready to assent to the full restoration of the Executive and all the institutions. How does Sinn Féin believe that that confidence can be built to a sufficient level to enable that to take place?

Mr Murphy: Yesterday, Seán Farren made the point that many matters, particularly in relation to institutional issues, that have been outlined in discussions are best resolved by the parties sitting around this table. Those matters do not necessarily need to be resolved before the restoration of the institutions. If Seán casts his mind back to the situation in 1998 that led to the formation of the first Executive in late 1999, he will remember that the degree of interaction between the parties at that time was similar to the level of interaction now. Nonetheless, Sinn Féin believes that the experience of operating the institutions, although it had its difficulties — and we are undoubtedly sitting here today because of those difficulties — was an important factor in building a degree of overall confidence in people’s exchanges and how they would work together.

I am sorry, Mr Chairman, I am being interrupted. I am trying my best.

There may well be confidence issues to be addressed. As Seán Farren and Martin McGuinness pointed out yesterday, there are two-way issues with regard to confidence. There is a substantial lack of confidence among the broad nationalist community, which the SDLP and Sinn Féin represent, in relation to the intentions of the DUP with regard to power sharing and a genuine engagement with any other party. That issue has to be addressed.

Yesterday you asked some of the parties whether there were issues that are prerequisite to the Executive being established. It is Sinn Féin’s view that there are not. The Executive can be established in the morning if there is the political will to do so. The confidence issues that other parties have outlined would be addressed in a much more positive fashion in a genuinely working institution — not a shadow or talking-shop institution — where people are sharing power and taking decisions together in the best interests of the people of this part of Ireland and interacting with the Administration and institution in the other part of Ireland. In our view, that would have a much more positive impact on addressing what some people claim to be, and perhaps from their perspective are, confidence issues.

However, as you rightly pointed out yesterday, there are two-way issues in relation to confidence, and they are best addressed in a working institution rather than in this vacuum where people sit back, hope that issues will arise that reinforce their position that they cannot do business with anyone else, and hope that others who are disinclined to provide any positive advice about other people’s intentions will whisper in their ears and encourage them to continue in a very negative stance. If people wish to go down that road, that sort of advice and guidance will be provided for them for the next 10 years. The best way to build confidence is to go in to working institutions with each other and start to build that degree of confidence between the parties.

Dr Farren: How are we going to proceed: by allowing several questions from a particular person at the one time?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes.

Dr Farren: It is up to others to say that they have reached a sufficient degree of confidence to allow them to enter into institutions. Obviously, engagement with each other is going to contribute significantly to that. However, the evidence is that that alone will not be sufficient. Therefore I am pressing the point as to whether, over and above engagement, there are other matters, let us say, related to policing or to ensuring that there is no activity associated with paramilitarism or criminality, that need to be addressed in order to help to build a sufficient level of confidence. We could engage a great deal here, but there are still gaps in my reading of the situation. Does Sinn Féin believe that, on the issues I have mentioned, there is any contribution that needs to be made either by itself or by others or by itself and others?

Mr Murphy:            The position we have outlined on policing is very clear. We have stated that we wish to be part of the policing arrangements here. There are several matters that we feel need to be resolved to allow us to play our part. We have endeavoured to work diligently with both Governments, and particularly with the British Government, on that. We have engaged with Dr Farren’s party and the other parties regarding the policing matters that, as far as we are concerned, are outstanding.

I presume that Dr Farren is talking about the IRA issues. I would argue that the initiatives that have been taken by the IRA in relation to its own existence and to its weapons have had a substantial impact in growing confidence so that this peace process can be bedded down. There will always be things that republicans can do and things they can examine to see how they can contribute to achieving a better atmosphere and a better scenario to enable people to work together and give that degree of confidence. However, we have to ask the question at times: will the DUP just sit back and wait?

William McCrea talked yesterday about the democratic waterline and a wait to see whether that could be met. Martin McGuinness argued that the democratic waterline as set by the DUP is designed never to be met. If it is the case that a Bill Lowry-type figure or some other cold warrior-type figure from the old RUC days would whisper in DUP ears about what is going on and what is advisable for them to do, the DUP will always find a reason to have a lack of confidence in moving forward with the rest of us.

10.45 am

Perhaps we have to ask whether people are genuinely seeking confidence or are seeking reasons not to have confidence. It is my view that, to date, people have been seeking the latter. We will continuously examine whether there are areas in which we can move to build confidence. Since this process started, republicans have not been behind the door about taking initiatives. We will address the policing issue as soon as we possibly can, but there is only so much that a party, an individual or a group can do. However, others have to ask whether they want to find reasons not to engage properly with the rest of us. If they want to find reasons not to go into these institutions they will find reasons; someone will whisper a reason in their ear.

Until about three weeks ago, I could have looked out of my window any morning and found a reason not to come here and do business with anyone else. The British Army was camped, looking through my window for the past 21 years. I could find reasons now — its helicopters are still flying over my house, and it is still stopping people on the roads around where I live. I could find reasons not to come here and do business. Instead, I go into my area and talk to people; I call meetings; I explain to people who are frustrated with the pace of development in this process that they are as well keeping faith with the peace process and that this process will deliver a genuinely better future. This is despite the fact that often, all of the reasons that stare us in the face — particularly in the south Armagh area — tell us otherwise.

Therefore we are genuinely trying to work to bed down this process; we are trying to find reasons for making progress here. Others are trying to find reasons why they cannot. There will always be those in the old guard of the RUC or any other spooks or spies that are about this place who will give them whatever reasons they wish. The question for them is: when will they have the confidence in themselves to go into a working institution with the rest of us and stand on their own mandate alone and not on the advice of some spook or spy?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next questions come from Mr Ford and Mrs Long of the Alliance Party.

Mr Ford: First, Mr Murphy talked about a cut-off date for this process at the end of this month. Now that we have finally got down to engaging on issues, the Committee may need to look at its plans for working over what would otherwise be a rather long summer holiday, potentially of two months. That would also apply to other working groups or Committees that might exist, whether or not they are subcommittees of this particular group.

I do not think Mr Murphy mentioned the so-called comprehensive agreement of December 2004 in his presentation. I would be interested to know what Sinn Féin’s current position is on the status of that particular document.

He spoke of sustainable and stable institutions, and then talked at some length about the issue of confidence. As I understand it, the Sinn Féin position is that confidence will best be established in working institutions. However, it seems to me that there are real issues of concern that if the institutions have not been established in a way that guarantees stability and sustainability, it is unlikely that that condition will be satisfied.

Although Mr Murphy questions whether some people are seeking reasons not to be confident, other parties represented in the room have at different times in the process sought to aid the momentum that Sinn Féin has shown at times. However, concerns remain on the part of some of those parties, and certainly on the part of the Alliance Party. The most recent IMC report, which clearly indicates quite significant progress, does not indicate that we have yet reached a place where criminality on the part of official republican organisations is at an end. Can Mr Murphy tell me how he can build that confidence so that the institutions become sustainable and stable?

Mr Murphy: In relation to the cut-off date, I was referring to the basis on which this Assembly was set up, if not in legislation, certainly in the declared intention of the British Government. When Peter Hain was setting up this Hain Assembly, it was understood that it would operate on the basis of what was contained in the Good Friday Agreement and in the 1998 legislation. The parties would be called together and have a six-week opportunity to elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

The British Government then stated that if that was not the case, the parties would be called together in the autumn for two further six-week periods — obviously based on the period of six weeks stated in the legislation, where if the Assembly were recalled, tried to elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and was unsuccessful, then there would be a six-week period in which to do that.

That is what I was talking about — the cut-off point, which was six weeks from 15 May. That was the clear rationale underpinning the approach of a six-week period followed by two six-week periods, which essentially became a 12-week period up to 24 November. That is the rationale that provided those dates for us. We did not agree with that rationale, but nonetheless that is the case.

In our view, suspension should have been lifted, the six-week period left to run, and things let to run their course. However, we have always been clear: if this Committee is getting down to genuine work, and if people are making an argument for us working over the summer, we have no difficulty with that. We will be working over the summer anyway — in our own party, in the various interface areas in the North, trying to keep the peace and trying to ensure that it is a quiet summer. We will be dealing with all those issues on the ground right across the summer. We have no difficulty in coming to places such as this if there is genuine work to be done. So that is where the cut-off dates came from.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There are still people in the room with their mobile phones on vibrate rather than silent, and they are close to the microphones. In the interests of the hard-pressed Hansard staff, please take your phones well away from the microphones because they cause interference.

Mr Murphy: Martin McGuinness made our position clear yesterday on what was described by the NIO as the comprehensive agreement.

We went into the formal review talks on the Good Friday Agreement with all the other parties. We put forward issues, which in our view could improve the working of the Good Friday Agreement. Some of those issues concerned the removal of suspension legislation; our requirement on Ministers to attend Executive meetings, which was a definite, certainly in the last Executive; automatic entitlement for Ministers, where appropriate, to attend North/South Ministerial Council meetings — again, that was abused in the last Executive by the First Minister — the creation of a requirement on Ministers to respect the joint nature of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister’s office; putting the Committee of the Centre on a statutory footing with the other Committees; and giving the ministerial code a statutory basis.

Those were some of the issues that we brought into the review and which we raised in discussions with the British and Irish Governments. Martin made it clear yesterday, and I reiterate the point, that at every meeting we had with them, we argued that this should be an inclusive process and that all parties should be involved in it.

The discussions with the two Governments and the other parties then came to a point in December 2004 when a comprehensive agreement package was put forward. We considered it on the basis that we wished to see improvements to the working of the Good Friday Agreement. The Government presented issues to us that could have had the institutions up and running, and an Executive restored within a matter of weeks, and we considered them on that basis.

That context is gone, because the Ballymena speech was made by Rev Ian Paisley, and the rest, as they say, is history. The two Governments then came to us at the start of this year and asked where we stood in relation to matters that had been outlined in their paper, which were proposals for a comprehensive agreement. We reiterated the issues that we brought to them during that review — issues that we felt should be identified and tackled to improve the working of the Executive and the Good Friday Agreement. That is where we currently stand in relation to it. The comprehensive agreement, as outlined in 2004, was in a completely different context. That context no longer exists.

There are a couple of other matters in relation to stability of the institutions. This carries on from the last point that I made. In our view, the greatest factor in causing the instability of the institutions was the suspension legislation. Every time the former First Minister decided that he might want to walk out of these institutions, the British Government rushed in and suspended them.

In our view, and I think we successfully argued the point, the removal of suspension legislation would lead to greater stability in these institutions, so that people no longer have the choice of walking out and having the British Government provide a safety net. Their choice would be either to walk out and go into an election or to stay in the institutions and make them work, through whatever difficulties we may face.

That is a factor in relation to the last question about confidence. There will always be issues that will cause us difficulties. You have to examine whether genuine and strident efforts have been made to create conditions that will grow confidence. I think it is undeniable that those efforts have been made to create conditions in which confidence can grow. People may still have issues; we have issues with other parties and how they do business. We certainly have issues in relation to how the British Government are conducting their business in this part of Ireland, but we will continue to engage with these people because the only way to address all of those issues is through a genuine engagement and, in our view, through a working institution.

Mr Ford: Mr Murphy said that the biggest issue acting against stability was the suspension legislation. Does he really believe that it was only the existence of the suspension legislation that led to unionists taking the actions that they have in the past? It seems to me that the institutions are not stable if there is the potential that they can be collapsed at any stage by the removal of one or more parties, and the way that they are set up requires the participation of those parties to make the institutions work. It would be interesting to know what Mr Murphy’s definition of “stability “ is in that sense and whether he sees the blame lying solely with the British Government and their legislation.

Mr Murphy: I do not think it lies solely there. There are issues in relation to how all the parties engage with each other and do business and the political will to do business and to see through difficult issues and to give leadership in their own communities.

I do not think there is any doubt that the safety net provided by suspension legislation meant that a party could walk out of the institutions with little consequence to itself. The only consequence to the institution was that we were not actually exercising power. The temptation to use that device created a much greater instability in the institutions. If there were a stark contrast facing people, either to work through issues or to go back to the electorate every time an issue caused them difficulty, then the impetus would be on people to try to work through the issues.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mrs Long, do you want to come in? Then we will move on from the Alliance Party.

Mrs Long: There is an issue I want to follow up with regard to suspension. In other societies that have similar divisions to our own, the tendency would be for people simply to continually return to the electorate, and you see the collapse of Governments over and over again. That is not a confidence-building process; in most cases that leads to much more instability rather than stability. Although I accept that constant suspension is an issue, I think that to blame the suspension legislation for that instability is to look at the symptoms rather than the cause. There is something there that must be addressed. It is quite clear that the alternative to suspension would be collapse, and that in itself is no more stable than suspension.

The other issue that I want to raise concerns point 5 of the summary paper that Sinn Féin provided. It suggests that the remit of the Committee is not to do the work of a future Executive. However, point 6 raises the issue of developing priorities for Government. That was expanded in the presentation this morning — for example, the Alliance Party would be able to put its issues on the table along with everyone else. The reality is that it is not the job of this Committee to prepare a Programme for Government. That is an issue for an Executive.

11.00 am

Although the Alliance Party welcomes parties listening to its views, I doubt very much, given that we would be going into an opposition role in the Assembly, that either of those parties would want to do that or that there would necessarily be consensus on all issues that would be raised. I wonder whether priorities for Government are part of the remit of this Committee, or whether that is something for down the line when we get to the point where people have the reasonable prospect of Government being established.

I want to clarify another issue. At the outset, Sinn Féin said that it believes that there are no barriers to restoration. I am not saying that that is its view of where other parties stand, but it is the party’s view that there are currently no barriers to restoration. Sinn Féin identifies three issues in paragraph 6 of its paper as those that need to be addressed: the peace dividend, policing and justice issues, and the priorities for Government. Does Sinn Féin see those issues, for example policing and so on, as having to be addressed in advance of restoration? Or does it see those as issues that would be addressed after restoration?

Given that Sinn Féin has said that it has no particular objection to immediate restoration, what I want to know is, having heard in the discussion so far that other people do have objections, what is its response to that? And does Sinn Féin feel that there is something that it has to do in order to address other people’s issues, or does it simply want to reiterate the position that there are no barriers and that restoration should proceed?

Mr Murphy: In relation to suspension, I suppose that it is a chicken-and-egg argument, because of the fact that suspension legislation meant that people were more likely to walk out of the institution rather than work through the issues that faced them. Whereas, if the consequence for people walking out of the institution was to go back to the electorate and explain to it the reason that they had brought down the institution, perhaps that would provide a more stark choice.

As to whether that provides confidence, there is an argument as to whether going back to an election in 2002 — the last time the Ulster Unionists walked out of the institution — or sitting in suspension from then until now would have created more confidence in the community than the situation from 2002 right up to now. That situation not only drains confidence but interest, and it creates apathy and a disregard for the attempts of people to get politics working here. There are arguments that we could debate among each other for quite some time.

On priorities for Government, I made the point that there is a practical difficulty in this Committee working on a Programme for Government. It would take interaction between people who are to be in Government and senior civil servants and heads of Departments to get a Programme for Government put down on paper.

I understand and accept the Alliance Party’s rationale that if its intention is to be in opposition, it might not necessarily want to be involved in discussing priorities for Government. However, if this Committee is to prepare for the return of the devolved institutions, it seems to Sinn Féin that a useful area of work that it could be getting down to is starting to scope those issues that would be a priority for an incoming Executive, so that rather than start into that discussion after restoration, people could have a degree of that work done and hit the ground running when an Executive returns.

On the question relating to barriers to restoration, I do dot deny that there are barriers. The question is whether addressing those barriers is a prerequisite to restoration. People have concerns that are big issues for them. None of those issues are so big that they could not be addressed within a working Executive and a working institution. They have to be addressed before that can be achieved. So, there is a difference in opinion. Of course, in answer to the question that Seán Farren asked, Sinn Féin has issues that, if it wanted to take them as such, could prevent it from doing business with anyone, certainly the British Government. However, Sinn Féin took the decision a long time back that the best way to move all those issues forward is through genuine engagement, and that is what Sinn Féin is trying to achieve here.

So, there are barriers, and there are contributions that we, as Sinn Féin, can make to try to address some of those issues, and part of what we attempted to do in this Committee was to have a genuine, across-the-table engagement with the DUP. So far we have not managed to achieve that, because the members of the DUP speak through the Chair. They do not engage directly with us at all. They do not speak to us outside this room; they do in certain council chambers, but certainly not in this institution. They do not seem to want to have a direct engagement with Sinn Féin in relation to those issues. Some of the issues that are barriers for the DUP could be addressed in a direct engagement with Sinn Féin, but I regret that we have not got to that position yet.

We are willing to play our part in addressing whatever issues the DUP has. In the first instance, it has the most issues, and it is refusing to go back into an Executive on the basis of those issues. The other parties have issues as well.

However, we are quite happy: we meet with Mrs Long’s party, the UUP and the SDLP, and we talk over any issues. We try our best to address matters that concern other parties in relation to us and matters that concern us in relation to other parties. That is the way to do it. Although there are barriers, in our view they should not deny us the ability to get back in charge of this institution and start taking decisions for the good of the people who have elected us.

Mrs Long: I have questions on the policing and justice issue that has been raised during the discussions in the last few days. First, what is Sinn Féin’s preference for the structures, and, secondly, given that party’s association and history, and recognising that things have changed in the past few years, how would it intend to build confidence right across the community, so that if a Sinn Féin Minister were to hold the post of Minister for justice or policing, those duties would be discharged in the best interests of the entire community? How would that party build that confidence, given that it has been expressed already in these discussions that such confidence currently does not exist?

Mr Murphy: I point to the experience of Martin McGuinness and Bairbre de Brún exercising ministerial power for the good of the entire community. People may have taken issue with some of their decisions: people took issue with some of the decisions taken by all of the Ministers. However, unless you want to be pig-headed about it — and some people may want to — I do not think that people could argue that they took decisions in the interests of one community rather than the other. They looked at the issues, and they operated their ministerial authority to the best of their ability in the interests of the entire community, and that is the approach that any Sinn Féin Minister in any Department — be it policing, justice or any other Department — would take. Not only that, those Ministers would be accountable to the Executive and the Assembly for that approach.

We have had preliminary discussions with other parties in relation to the models for policing and justice. We do not have any firm or fixed view, and we are open to discussion and debate with the other parties. That is why this is one issue that this Committee could usefully get down to detailing to people — in our instance, maybe Gerry Kelly or Alex Maskey, and for the SDLP, Alban Maginness, Alex Attwood or whoever the policing spokesperson happens to be for the other parties. Those people could clear away a substantial area of work, and the implications from that, and the knock-on effect for the other Departments, is an issue for the preparation for a return to the Executive and restored institutions.

We do not have any preference at present, other than to get the best arrangements that would give that degree of confidence. Sinn Féin would also have confidence issues if the DUP were to have the position of policing and justice. For example, a contentious parading issue could arise in which a Minister for policing and justice would have some input, and if someone from the DUP, who was a member of a Loyal Order such as the Orange Order were responsible, that would raise confidence issues.

Rather than leave ourselves at the mercy of an individual, we should work together to build the right structures so that we would have confidence in a policing and justice structure that would deliver impartial results.

Mrs Long: I welcome that response. It is a matter that we raised, not only with Mr Murphy’s party, but also with other parties, discussing how their influence over policing and justice could be an issue where confidence could not be established right across the community.

Mr Murphy said that he has no fixed view on policing and justice. However, we have given our view on a number of models that were outlined. Does he have any view on which of those models he feels would be more appropriate or less appropriate? Does he have any preferences, or does he have another model in mind? Has he considered, for example, some of the issues that we raised in relation to collectivity, because, although he referred to Ministers being accountable to the Executive and the Assembly, that is not quite accurate. Although they may have to justify their decisions, those decisions, at this stage, are within the remit of the individual Minister and cannot, under the current institutions, be checked in any shape or form.

Has Mr Murphy given any thought to that, and to how greater accountability across the Executive and the Assembly would add to confidence in those situations?

Mr Murphy: In relation to ministerial accountability, Sinn Féin made propositions under the review on the ministerial code and its status.

I do not have any preference for any of the models, and I am at something of a loss about that. That perhaps reinforces the point that I made at the start of the presentation, that there are people in our parties who have done substantial work on those matters. I have knowledge in relation to the policing and justice issues, but I do not have an expertise. For instance, I would not claim to have done the same degree of work that Gerry Kelly has done.

In order to advance these discussions to the level necessary to prepare for the return of the institutions, the people in the parties who have responsibility for those areas should sit down together to discuss models and accountability measures, and how the policing and justice department would be operated. That is the necessary preparatory work for Government, and that argues for the people in the parties who have that knowledge and expertise getting together to do that work, and bringing the findings of the reports — whether or not they are agreed — to us for our consideration, and to an Assembly for debate. That is the natural way that this Committee should operate if we genuinely want to carry out preparatory work for the return of the institutions.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We now move on to Mr McFarland, and I see that Mr McNarry and Mr Kennedy have also indicated that they wish to speak. Would it be helpful to members to speak as a team, or would they rather speak as individuals? I notice that the Alliance Party contributed as a team.

Mr McFarland: If we could speak in turn — I would like to speak first, and then we could hear from Mr McNarry and Mr Kennedy.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Dallat gets left out of the loop, so I will come back to him.

Mr Dallat: I am well used to that.

Mr McFarland: I want to deal with several issues in turn. These issues affect the unionist confidence in the good faith of Sinn Féin, and it would be useful if we could tease them out.

I was encouraged by yesterday’s meeting and, in particular, Martin McGuinness’s comments that he was interested in genuine and open discussion and engagement with the other parties.

For some years, Sinn Féin has been the voice of the republican movement, and there has been a general acceptance that Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA are inextricably linked and that, in fact, there is duality — or was duality — between senior members of the IRA and senior members of Sinn Féin. Most of my questions are directly related to the IRA and Sinn Féin and where it is all going, because those are the issues that affect unionist confidence.

The most recent IMC report went into a fair amount of detail and, unlike the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) — which reported that decommissioning of the weapons that they had seen was complete — reported that the Provisional IRA had held back weapons. It is generally accepted that there will always be weapons lying somewhere, either in a hide that somebody has forgotten about, or possibly because individuals, against the understood orders from the top, have held back trophy weapons or personal weapons that they have had for years. I would be surprised if those involved in organised crime have not kept back some weapons for personal protection or protection of their empires.

My first question is: does Sinn Féin accept that there is a strong probability, as described by the IMC, that individuals or groups — perhaps against orders — have held back weapons, and that, as reported by the IMC, weapons were not decommissioned in the way that they should have been?

I would like those issues to be dealt with in turn, otherwise they get mixed up.

Mr Murphy: Generally, I do not have any confidence in the IMC, its reporting mechanisms, how it gathers its evidence, how it reports or the individuals involved with it. It is important to say that. It is a matter of public record. Mr McFarland made a statement about Sinn Féin being the voice of the republican movement. I have to say that the IRA has its own voice, which it has used quite well over the years. Sinn Féin is the voice of Sinn Féin.

11.15 am

I am sorry that I do not have the section that was read with me, because despite my difficulties and differences with the IMC, I nonetheless read the reports. I have conducted a court case against the IMC, so it is important that I do that. If I recall that section correctly, it states something along the lines that someone unidentified has suggested that it might be the case that some members may have kept some weapons. The quantities and calibre are unspecified. If this were to be the case, and if they have been kept in the numbers that might have been suggested, it may have serious implications.

How can anyone respond to such a vague and unsubstantiated allegation — that someone suggested that someone might have something and that it might have implications? That was the basis of the IMC report, and it underpins our experience of the IMC to date, which is that, like the DUP, it has the cold warriors whispering in its ear about what may or may not be the case, and it brings its own particular baggage to all of this. I do not think that the IMC has any useful function to play.

The mechanism by which the UUP, Sinn Féin and all the other parties — apart from the DUP — agreed to deal with this issue was Gen de Chastelain. Not only was there the de Chastelain mechanism, there were additional witnesses. As far as the Governments are concerned, and as far as we are concerned, the issue of IRA weaponry — whatever about anyone else’s weaponry — has been dealt with to the satisfaction of the IICD, and there it lies.

Someone can whisper in the IMC’s ear for the next 10 years that somebody might have something, and we are not sure what it might be, but if they do, it might have implications. We could sit here for the next 10 years trying to answer that type of unspecified and unsubstantiated allegation on behalf of another organisation. I do not think that that is a very constructive way to go about it.

I do not know how confidence can be given in those regards, because people could say that they have done the business, and people can either accept or not accept that. Republicans are always willing to see how they can talk to people, convince people and offer explanations. At a certain point, it becomes more difficult to do that, when that type of allegation is being dealt with.

Mr O’Dowd: I am surprised that Mr McFarland is sitting here talking about unionist confidence, and then he mentions IRA weaponry. Since the collapse of these institutions, 26 members of the Protestant community have been murdered, every one of them with the use of loyalist weapons. Four members of the Catholic community have been murdered with the use of loyalist weapons. I seriously doubt whether members of the unionist community sit in their homes at night worrying about IRA weapons.

If someone were living in a working-class Protestant area, he or she would be worrying about Ulster Defence Association (UDA) weapons, Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) weapons, Ulster Resistance weapons and all the other weapons that are out there being pointed from within at the Protestant community. To be honest, this concern, this smokescreeen, about IRA weapons is exactly that — a smokescreen. I have no right to speak on behalf of the unionist community, but I seriously doubt whether IRA weapons are a major concern for the unionist community.

Mr McFarland: My question is specific and is based on the issues of openness, honesty and good faith. Does Sinn Féin accept, for whatever reason, that it is possible that some of the IRA weapons were not decommissioned? It is just an acceptance that for whatever reason — and I have covered the reasons — people may have hides that they have forgotten about, or individuals may have disobeyed orders and kept trophy weapons, or people with organised-crime empires may have kept back personal protection weapons. Does Sinn Féin accept that some of the IRA weapons may not have been decommissioned?

Mr Murphy: There is a difference between what Mr McFarland is suggesting and what the IMC was suggesting, which was vague and unsubstantiated. The IMC reported that some portion of weapons was kept back deliberately and, if that were the case, the implications were that those weapons were being held back for a specific purpose.

Is Mr McFarland’s suggestion that there might have been a rifle hidden in a ditch 40 years ago that somebody forgot about, or that the person who knew about it had died? Is that the case? Could that be the case? It could well be the case. I do not know, because I do not know what weapons were decommissioned or what weapons existed.

What I do know is that there was an agreed mechanism for dealing with this, which the parties signed up to in 1998. That agreed mechanism was Gen de Chastelain’s Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. It had additional witnesses above and beyond the agreed mechanism for dealing with the issue, and they have reported that they are satisfied that the issue of IRA weapons has been dealt with. The two Governments have also stated that they are satisfied. If other people are seeking additional satisfaction above and beyond that, then that goes above and beyond the Good Friday Agreement, and it certainly goes above and beyond what any other Sinn Féin representative or I can give.

Mr McFarland: Is it possible that units, a brigade or individuals may have disobeyed orders to hand in their weapons, which would account for the fact that the IMC is reporting that not all weapons were handed in? I am not blaming Sinn Féin for not handing them in; I am asking whether it accepts that some members of the Provisional IRA could have disobeyed orders. I presume that the IMC is not reporting that wilfully or deliberately telling lies and that it has indications from whatever sources — Sinn Féin may not believe them; they may be securocrats — which it believes in order to put that in the report. The commission is made up of quite an international bunch. It is not a bunch of ex-RUC men who are saying this.

Mr O’Dowd: It is headed up by a former member of the Alliance Party.

Mr McFarland: There is also a former senior member of the CIA and an ex-senior member of the Irish Civil Service. They have not made this up. Does Sinn Féin accept the possibility that members of the IRA have, for whatever reason, not handed in their guns?

Mr Maskey: Conor Murphy has dealt with that matter at length, and much of what we have said is on the public record. We also dealt with the matter in bilaterals with Mr McFarland’s party. For the record, we have absolutely no evidence to suggest that any of what Mr McFarland outlined has happened, we have no indications that it has happened, and we have certainly no reason to believe that anything that he has outlined has actually happened. Therefore there is not much more that we can say on the matter.

Mr McFarland: My next question relates to policing. Recently, there has been a slightly esoteric link between policing and parades. At Tullamore in 1994, Gerry Adams told us that it had taken him three years to engineer the parading row and to get people to turn out. In recent years, it seems to have evolved from a parading issue into one where republicans object to a parade and then get the police on the street, and that has led to riots and petrol bombings, etc.

My understanding is that there is a process of discussion in the republican community on the future of policing. The word on the grapevine is that an Ard-Fheis will be held soon to try to get some resolution to the issue, but it is a bit like a tanker. Yesterday, the officers in uniform were filthy, dirty, collusive ex-RUC men, and tomorrow a young republican from Crossmaglen will be encouraged to join the PSNI. Presumably, Sinn Féin will also join the Policing Board. If this is to be solved — and there needs to be a resolution before we get stable Government here — how can this tanker be turned round in such a short time? Yesterday, the PSNI was the enemy and tomorrow young republicans will be asked to join it. How does Sinn Féin see that evolving? It is a key part of the confidence building and of the understanding that is required to get Government up and running here and to get a potential deal with the DUP in the autumn. How can Sinn Féin get the broader republican movement and young republicans to switch off from the fact that yesterday the PSNI was the sworn enemy and that tomorrow it wants them to join it?

Mr Murphy: I could be facetious and say that Sinn Féin could take a lesson from the Ulster Unionist Party. Yesterday — and, perhaps, even today — Sinn Féin was the sworn enemy of Ulster, and, yet, there is a possibility of the Ulster Unionist Party sharing power with my party as it has done in the past. Therefore, we all have historical experiences with which we must deal.

Mr McFarland is operating on the incorrect premise that republicans created the parading issue and he misquoted a speech that Gerry Adams is supposed to have made in Tullamore. I was told that the speech was made in Co Meath. However, regardless of which county the speech was made in, it is incorrect to assume that republicans created the parading issue. The Committee should know — and Alex will verify this — that it was about 60 or 70 republican activists who stopped trouble at the Tour of the North parades. In doing so, they took quite a substantial degree of personal and physical abuse. There was no one there from the DUP, neither were there recognisable figures from the Ulster Unionist Party to keep people quiet and at bay. Therefore, republicans are in communities preventing trouble during parades.

This situation goes back as far as — take your pick — hundreds of years. In the current climate, it goes back as far as Obin Street in Portadown in the eighties. There has always been a tension around parading issues, and Sinn Féin is — I would argue — working harder than any other political party to resolve parading issues at community level.

Sinn Féin’s attitude to policing was referred to. Yes, that issue must be resolved. It is not simply an attitude that republicans have to policing. The republican community’s attitude to policing is borne out of its historical experience of policing in this state, which, to this very day, continues in the same vein in many republican areas. If Members were to ask young people in Crossmaglen, Ballymurphy, or any other nationalist community in the North about their experiences of policing — not the republican community’s view of policing, but its actual experiences — they would be told of continued harassment and continued attempts to recruit young criminals to provide evidence and information and to spy on their neighbours.

That is a continuing experience. Therefore, it is not simply a matter of turning the juggernaut that is the republican attitude to policing. It is a matter of trying to get policing structures in which people can have confidence that what they experience, not just through their lifetimes, but those of their parents and grandparents, changes to become a genuinely responsive and accountable policing service.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I think that Mr Maskey wishes to add to that.

Mr Maskey: With all due respect to Alan McFarland, sometimes the questions that are asked depend on who is in the audience. He is not doing himself any great service. Notwithstanding that, our fundamental approach to this issue is that we will give leadership in our communities. When we conclude on the basis that Conor Murphy outlined earlier in respect of policing, for example, we will have no difficulty taking the decisions to our party and our communities in order that people can buy into them. Leadership will be central to how we take the matter forward. It is not a case of turning the tanker round or one of what was good or bad yesterday could be good today. We will give leadership — as we normally do — at that time.

Mr McFarland knows well the efforts that my party has made in many difficult situations, whether at the Tour of the North or any other interface areas. Indeed, a small number of my colleagues has been proactive in preventing difficulties in those areas and in maintaining the peace despite sometimes-difficult circumstances. I reiterate the point that just last week, 12 of our colleagues were injured in assaults by members of the nationalist community along parts of the Tour of the North route. The stewards who were trying to maintain calm, keep the peace and prevent any trouble bore the brunt of the ill feeling. That will give Members an example of some of the difficulties in those areas, whether from disaffected or alienated youths or from people who are disgusted by some of the Parades Commission’s decisions or the nature of some of the parades.

Mr McFarland will be aware of the efforts that Sinn Féin is making. It is ironic, therefore, that he has questioned us about policing when his party recently brought on board David Ervine of the Progressive Unionist Party. Less than a year ago, his associates in the UVF were involved in some of the most serious violence against the police — with gunshots, blast bombs and petrol bombs — in this city and beyond, but particularly in this city. Therefore, Mr McFarland does not appear to have found it difficult to support the police while welcoming to his party grouping in the Assembly representatives of people who have attacked the police and, for a variety of reasons, are openly anti-police.

Mr McFarland will understand that, for Sinn Féin, it will be a question of leadership. He will argue also that he is involved in leadership, and that is fair enough. Sinn Féin will deal with the issue of policing through the integrity of its leadership.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Ford, you indicated that you wish to speak: is it specifically on policing?

Mr Ford: It is specifically on the point raised a few minutes ago on the IMC.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It will have to be short because I am conscious of the fact that I am interrupting the Ulster Unionists, and the SDLP has sat very patiently for quite a long time.

Mr Ford: I appreciate that. I want to establish one quick point of clarification. During that exchange on the IMC, John O’Dowd said that the IMC was:

“headed up by a former member of the Alliance Party.”

I just want to know whether I am to take it from his tone of voice that he regards this as proof of bias on the parts of both the IMC and the Alliance Party.

11.30 am

Mr O’Dowd: I was calling into question the independence of the IMC; that was what the comment related to.

Mr McFarland: Chairman, thank you, and thanks for the answer. Can I move on to another issue that again is in the IMC report and is of genuine concern — organised crime and criminality.

About two months ago, I was very heartened by ‘Let’s Talk’. When Martin McGuinness was pressed on his attitude to criminality he said:

“If there’s criminality, let the authorities deal with it.”

I remember being surprised and encouraged at the time that this was an approach that, to my understanding, had not been previously there from Sinn Féin. This was followed a few days later by Gerry Adams who said the same thing:

“If there’s criminality, let the authorities deal with it.”

Now that is an approach that we would all be able to identify with.

Around the same time, the Assets Recovery Agency, the Garda Síochána and the PSNI arrived at, and had an enormous raid on, the property of Thomas “Slab” Murphy in south Armagh, where they found €200,000 under a haystack, a computer with records, and they confiscated petrol tankers.

This, as I understand it, is the same family that was involved last year with the 200 houses under family names in Manchester and Birmingham. The allegation was that this was some form of organised criminality — and, of course, Mr Murphy is an extremely senior member of the republican movement and has been for many years.

As I said earlier, there is a close link between Sinn Féin and the IRA. This link is clearly still there: the houses are still there, and I have no doubt as we go through this there will be a substantial amount of other evidence that there is direct relationship between the IRA and organised crime.

Given the links between Sinn Féin and the IRA, and given the clear evidence — and I know they keep denying it, but it is quite clear that these are organised crime empires — how does Sinn Féin see itself being able to distance itself from the IRA and this organised crime so that the unionist community and the general public will believe that there is no longer a link and that the allegation that Sinn Féin benefits from the proceeds of these funds can no longer be substantiated?

How do you unstitch, unhinge or stand down this enormous crime empire in time for Sinn Féin to be viewed as being an acceptable partner on the Policing Board or, indeed, in Government?

Mr Murphy: It is interesting that Mr McFarland’s party has encouraged us to join the Policing Board since it was created, long before the IRA took any initiative last year in relation to its existence or weaponry, yet these are now issues for the UUP.

Alan McFarland is almost asking us to prove that republicans are innocent. He spoke about the enormous evidence. Let the evidence take its course, if there is enormous evidence. I could say that there is enormous evidence that the UUP is up to all sorts of shenanigans in America with hidden bank accounts and that it is a corrupt party, hiding business from the Electoral Commission, and that it should be thrown out of Government on that basis. Let the evidence take its course and see what shapes up.

The reality is that the IRA issued a statement last year that outlined its attitude. As far as it was concerned, the armed struggle and the conflict were over. It instructed all its volunteers to engage in no further activities whatsoever and dealt with the issue of its weapons. For me, the issue of the IRA is substantially dealt with. I realise and accept that other people will have ongoing issues that they will have questions about.

To cobble together everything that Mr McFarland has mentioned and say that it is an enormous weight of evidence, that republicans must prove themselves to be innocent and that Sinn Féin must go further and prove itself to be entirely innocent, and that there might then be some confidence — I am afraid that it will not work that way.

It is like the point that I made in relation to the DUP. If you want to find something to give you a reason for not doing business, you will. I could find something any day I wished to give me a reason not to do business, but my party believes that the best way to advance peace in this part of the world and to get the institutions bedded down is to get in and start to work them. Through that, issues that cause a lack of confidence on all sides can be further addressed — I would argue that many of them have been addressed to date.

I will not stand here and defend Tom Murphy or any other individual, because a number of allegations have been made against him; that is not my job. I am here to represent Sinn Féin. I am quite happy to stand over how we raise all our money — and I hope that everyone else feels the same — how we spend it, where we keep it, and to make our accounts open to anyone who wants to scrutinise them. As I said, I hope that all the other parties are the same.

Mr McFarland: The IRA, as I understand it, has said that the war is over, has decommissioned the bulk of its weapons, had a medal ceremony in Dublin for its volunteers and had a gathering in Dublin — I am just going on newspaper reports; Mr Murphy can tell me whether it is true or not.

Mr Maskey: Were you the guest of honour?

Mr Murphy: It was at Tullamore.

Mr McFarland: The IRA has had a gathering of the families of the bereaved in Dublin — there were pictures of that in the paper. There are strong indications that the IRA, as regards its former existence, is stood down or is in the process of doing so. However, it is still there. Is it possible to get some indication, given that Mr Murphy is close to the IRA in philosophy, as to where the IRA sees itself going? If it stays in existence and views itself as an army — there is only one reason for an army to exist, and that is to fight. Why would anyone wish to keep a standing army, albeit temporarily disarmed? We all know that a group of us could return from eastern Europe tomorrow with a plane-load of weapons, if we had the money.

Mr Murphy and I have spoken about this at length. The decommissioning was not about the weapons; it was about indications of good faith as to why people wanted to hold onto weapons if they were no longer offering us violence. The question is why, if it is to remain in existence, but not turn itself into a republican equivalent of the British Legion, does it wish to stay in existence? An army exists only to be ready to fight.

Mr Murphy: That is a question for the IRA. The IRA has been in existence since the early part of the last century. I do not even know the date on which it was formed. It has always been in existence. At times, it has been something that has exercised unionists; at other times it has not. As with any organisation, its intention, ability and willingness to do certain acts are more relevant than its actual existence. The statement made by the IRA and the initiative taken by it are of huge significance for the future of this entire country. We have a responsibility to build on that.

We could try to poke holes in it to convince ourselves that it is somehow not genuine, or we can take advantage of it. It is the same situation with all of the issues in which I do not have confidence concerning other parties and the Governments. I can build on what I have or poke holes and provide myself with a further lack of confidence as a reason for not moving on. Whether we take advantage of it or not, the initiative taken by the IRA last year was hugely significant, as time and history will prove. It is a clear, firm statement of what was already a trend of development in the IRA’s existence and activities. That was confirmed last August.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I want to cover a procedural issue. Yesterday we timed the questioning of the DUP submission at four and a half hours. Therefore, in the interests of fairness, Members will be given the opportunity to question Sinn Féin for that length of time. That will take us from 1.30 pm until 4.00 pm. It is clear that Members will use that time — we have taken an indication of questions, and they are quite lengthy and thorough.

To be realistic, on that basis and because of the problem that has arisen with the Business Committee, we must take it almost as read that there will be only one submission today. It is not worthwhile starting the SDLP submission at 4.00 pm. I am in the hands of Members on that. Do you wish to stay here until 6.00 pm or 7.00 pm?

Mr McFarland: Logically, if certain questions have been answered, they should no longer trouble Members. I have no doubt that many have not yet been asked. It is hard to see how to judge, because there could be two or three more topics to discuss, in which case we could finish earlier; however, perhaps it is worth —

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am just alerting Members, because I sense a slight frustration in the two parties who have not yet got their teeth into questioning.

Mr Paisley Jnr: We should perhaps just play it by ear, and see how it develops. I would be happy with that.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we agree that if we still have not completed this at 4.00 pm, there is no sense in starting the SDLP submission?

Mr A Maginness: We should play it by ear and be flexible. However, I have a difficulty this afternoon, and I wondered if I could ask Mr Kennedy a question now.

Mr Kennedy: I do not think Mr Kennedy was going to be called.

Mr McNarry: I too have a problem this afternoon. It depends on the answers, but I do not intend to be lengthy.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we try to sort out the gist of a question, Mr Maginness and Dr McCrea, before we all adjourn at 12.00 noon? Dr McCrea is in a similar situation, so we will try to squeeze the three of you in before 12.00 noon.

Mr McNarry: As long as we get the answers that we look for.

Mr O’Dowd: There is no guarantee of that.

Mr Murphy: We are happy to stay here, should it be 4.00 pm or beyond, to answer questions for as long as people have questions for us to answer.

Mr McNarry: I would like to think that if the DUP was grilled for four and a half hours, and I have a certain empathy with many of its points, that we would do a similar job on the republicans.

Mr Murphy: We have been grilled for more than four and a half hours, I can tell you.

Mr McNarry: I am sure that you have, but on those occasions you did not have as much light as you have in this room.

11.45 am

Mr McNarry: Conor Murphy mentioned his concerns about a DUP Minister of justice being an orangeman. That was insulting to orange brethren, irrespective of party allegiance. It may have been a sign of ignorance on his part, but I trust that he will read Hansard and reflect on what he has said. Neither a DUP orangeman nor an Ulster Unionist orangeman is likely to take the Ministry of policing or justice. An orangeman possibly, but there is a distinction. I am sensitive to what he said, and I hope that he understands that.

Mr Murphy also mentioned his hope, which I share, for a peaceful summer. He said that it might be a key to what happens when this Committee meets after the recess. He spoke of his ability to encourage dialogue to reduce community tension. That could, of course, be taken as something of an admission that he also has the ability to discourage peaceful activity. On the positive aspect of that, it would be key to my party and me to know whether those who Mr Murphy encourages would settle for peaceful protests at all times, and that peaceful protests would be just that. His colleague Mr Maskey mentioned Mr Murphy’s recent work in that area, which is acknowledged.

Continuing with the theme of encouragement, what could Mr Murphy do to encourage the Government with which he is pally to remove the veto position that they allow him, so that parties could, in principle, establish the right to form a voluntary coalition in a restored Northern Ireland Assembly? That principle would be key to democracy, and it is an open secret that Members from my side of the House believe that, as there is no way that he would enter a Government other than by being pally with the two Governments, Mr Murphy will cling to the veto principle and perhaps deny any other parties the right to form a coalition. He will appreciate that it is normal to do that in a modern European democracy.

Mr Murphy: Normal in a normal democracy — I would contest whether there has ever been normal democracy in this state.

I accept Mr McNarry’s point about orangemen in the DUP. I was pointing out the broad nationalist view that there may be a conflict of interest were such an issue to arise and a member of the DUP, or, indeed, a member of the UUP, were to become Minister for justice and happened also to be a member of the Loyal Orders.

Mr McNarry: If I may interrupt, Mr Murphy is not attacking the parties; he attacks the Orange Institution, which is not represented here.

Mr Murphy: I was interested to read a statement the other day from a former leading member of the Orange Institution — I think that he currently is a member — who criticised disciplinary action being taken against other members. He was quite clear that the Orange Institution that he joined had changed very much and was morphing into a very political organisation. However, that debate is ongoing within the Orange Institution. From a nationalist perspective, there could sometimes be considered to be a conflict of interest in relation to those matters.

As Alex Maskey outlined, we can give leadership to try to encourage a peaceful summer. It does not suit our communities in the Ardoyne, or wherever else, for there to be conflict. We give leadership to try to ensure that, although people have issues with Loyal Order parades going through certain areas, they do not become issues of violence. We try to give leadership; leadership was lacking in the aftermath of last year’s Springfield Road parade. Leadership is what we try to give.

It is not in my gift to speak for every area. Parading issues are, in the first instance, matters for those people who live in the areas through which parades pass. We try to give leadership to ensure that, if people dispute the rights of Loyal Orders to parade through certain areas, in certain fashions, at certain times, there is a peaceful resolution.

I can assure the Committee that we will continue to give leadership in that regard. I cannot say here and now that that will always be successful; however we endeavour to be successful in that regard.

On the subject of a voluntary coalition, the experiences of nationalists in political institutions in this state were such — we can get into a long historical argument, but I am conscious that we only have five minutes to answer Mr McNarry’s question — that clauses and guarantees and checks and balances had to be built into the Good Friday arrangements to ensure that the abuse of power that had been practised in this statelet was no longer continued in the new institutions, and that the Good Friday Agreement marked a genuinely new beginning to political institutions and the political experience of people in institutions in this state.

The Good Friday Agreement recognised the fact that this was not a normal democracy and that there were not normal democratic proceedings. People had to be able to buy into the political institutions, and therefore their position in the political institutions had to be guaranteed. I wish for it to be otherwise, but that is the historical reality that faces us as we try to work these institutions. Therefore, we would not give away our rights to be represented in a power-sharing Executive in this institution, given the historical experience that we have had at the receiving end in this state when power was exercised in an untrammelled fashion.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can I ask you to bring your remarks to a close?

Mr Murphy: Yes.

The intricate measures that were built in were a recognition of the experience of nationalists in this state and of the necessity to get nationalists to buy into genuine power-sharing arrangements with all of the other parties. Therefore, it would be foolish of us to give up and to try to undo and ignore that historical experience. We have a right to be in the institutions as they are defined in the Good Friday Agreement, and we will defend that right.

Mr McNarry: Is it fair to say —

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McNarry, I have promised five minutes to each Member. If you have a point, give it to one of your colleagues to ask later on.

Mr Maginness, you have five minutes strictly and then Mr McCrea has five minutes.

Mr A Maginness: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am trying to understand the position of Sinn Féin on policing, and to put it as succinctly as I can, in an attempt to understand it, whenever policing and justice powers are returned to Northern Ireland — to the Northern Ireland Assembly — Sinn Féin will, at that point, support the police and join the Policing Board. Is that an oversimplification or is that the position of Sinn Féin?

Mr Maskey: It is perhaps an oversimplification, and again I cannot understand why that is the case, because our position is very clear. We are working towards the opportunity for ourselves to be part of policing arrangements. We were involved substantially in the discussions on policing and many other matters that led to the Good Friday Agreement. Therefore, we signed up to policing arrangements as per the Good Friday Agreement. We have not yet attained those arrangements. We are working diligently to achieve them.

Obviously, the debate has moved to a point at which we are looking for, as are others, the transfer of policing and justice arrangements back here to an accountable Executive, Assembly and institutions. We have said very clearly that when we are at that point we will put those proposed arrangements to our party and seek to convince it and our wider constituency that it is time to become involved in policing arrangements. We have our benchmark. We have discussed it with yourselves fully, regularly and bilaterally. When we secure those areas, we will go to our party and get leadership on that issue.

Mr A Maginness: Therefore, Mr Maskey is in general agreement with the statement that I have made. I do not want to misinterpret his position, because I am genuinely trying to clarify what Sinn Féin is saying. In effect, if there is a transfer of powers, Sinn Féin will go to its party and, in a proactive way, seek its support for the new policing arrangements.

Mr Maskey: We have said very clearly, as I think Alban will appreciate, that we want to see the transfer of policing and justice arrangements. We want to look at the modalities. We want to agree a time frame. Having settled on those matters and having got them resolved, we will most certainly go to our party.

Mr A Maginness: In the absence of the transfer of powers, which is dependent on cross-community support in the Assembly, what will Sinn Féin’s position be in relation to policing and, in particular, to the PSNI as it is currently constituted? I am interested in that issue, because on 11 May 2006 ‘The Irish Times’ published an interview that Frank Millar had conducted with Gerry Adams. In that interview, Gerry Adams stated:

“Policing may be a necessary element in the resolution of the outstanding matters to do with the Assembly.”

However, policing must be dealt with in any case. That comment by Gerry Adams suggests, to me, that there is an alternative Sinn Féin position. I would like Sinn Féin to comment on that statement.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): You have two minutes to respond, Mr Maskey.

Mr Maskey: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

For a substantial time, in all our discussions at bilateral level and with the Governments — particularly, as Conor Murphy said, with the British Government — Sinn Féin has focused extensively on the question of policing. We are not working for an absence of accountable institutions; we are involved in a serious and sustained effort to re-establish the accountable institutions, which will include the transfer of policing and justice. That is what Sinn Féin is working towards, and I hope that we can secure that transfer. We are working for a successful outcome to this process, no matter how sceptical some of us may be about it. We are working for success as opposed to failure.

Mr A Maginness: The point that I am making is that Gerry Adams is hinting at an alternative. What is that alternative?

Mr Maskey: All that I can say is that we are not working for failure; we are working for a successful outcome to this phase of negotiations.

Dr McCrea: Mr Deputy Speaker, as far as the unionist community is concerned, paramilitarism, criminality and decommissioning are vital ingredients if we are to move forward to devolved government. As far as we are concerned, if those issues are not satisfactorily resolved, there will be no devolved government.

Does Sinn Féin accept the fact that those issues must be resolved before devolved government is restored? Does Sinn Féin accept the fact that that is the unionist standpoint?

Mr Murphy: Sinn Féin acknowledges that that standpoint has been the DUP’s public position, William. In Sinn Féin’s view, there are no outstanding issues to prevent the restoration of the institutions. DUP issues, Sinn Féin issues and the issues of the other parties can best be addressed and resolved among all the parties at this table. First, that can be done through direct engagement, which, to date, the DUP has refused to engage in. That direct engagement should extend to Sinn Féin and all the other political parties. Secondly, it can be done through the working of these institutions, where a general degree of confidence in one another’s good intentions can be built up.

I accept the fact that the DUP has issues about activities, weapons and organisations. I note that the DUP normally zeroes in on the IRA, despite the activities of loyalist paramilitaries. There is severe doubt among many others, not just among Sinn Féin members, about whether the DUP’s mark for satisfaction could ever be met and about whether it genuinely wants the issues to be addressed and resolved to its satisfaction, or to something that it thinks is a barrier, which means that the DUP will not have to share power with Sinn Féin in any restored institution.

Dr McCrea: Confidence is a major issue, and the unionist community does not trust the IRA. The unionist community does not have confidence in Sinn Féin’s stance of being inextricably linked to the IRA.

I was asked a direct question about Billy Wright. I will now ask a direct question. Will the Sinn Féin delegation tell me, and confirm, that Martin McGuinness was a commander of the Provisional IRA? When did he step down from that position? Or did he step down?

12.00 noon

Mr Murphy: Martin McGuinness gave evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. It is a matter of public record. The Member may refer back to that. I cannot remember the exact dates that he gave for his involvement in the IRA and when that involvement ceased.

In reality, the DUP may have no confidence in the IRA, but it is not being asked to share power with the IRA. The DUP has no confidence in Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin has confidence issues, as do the SDLP and probably some of the other parties, with the DUP. How do we resolve those confidence issues, William? We are sitting in a small room, face to face, in Parliament Buildings in Stormont. We can start to resolve those confidence issues through direct engagement, and we could resolve many of them very well through having a direct working relationship with each other, as a result of which we could start to deal with issues of importance to you and your constituents. Yesterday you mentioned the autism issue, which Martin McGuinness tried to advance across the island, as a matter that was important to you. There are many other issues that we can work on together to try and build a general degree of confidence in each other’s motives and motivations, and in where we each are coming from and going to.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Gentlemen and ladies, it is 12.00 noon. Mr Molloy will be in the Chair at 1.30 pm, and discussion of the issues raised this morning can continue until parties are satisfied that they have had a good hearing.

Mr McFarland: Mr Chairman, I do not know how many other colleagues are involved, but the Special Olympics opens this evening, and a number of us have received invitations. I understand that the launch is now at 5.30 pm, not 6.30 pm, so there is a flash-to-bang time here. Perhaps we might leave here at 4.00 pm to allow us to get home, change and get down to the Odyssey for 5.30 pm.

Mr Murphy: That is for those of us who live close to here.

The Committee was suspended at 12.01 pm.

On resuming —

1.32 pm

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

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): OK, members, we have a quorum. We want to close the meeting at 4.00 pm because of the Special Olympics. Is everyone agreed on that? And on tomorrow morning’s starting time?

Mr Morrow: Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that tomorrow morning probably suits a lot of people, but not tomorrow afternoon. It may not be possible to get through the two remaining presentations from the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP. Is there any possibility of putting those off until Monday?

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): What way are other members fixed for tomorrow?

Mr Ford: Is Maurice suggesting that we hold no meeting at all tomorrow?

Mr Morrow: Yes.

Mr Kennedy: I suppose that we could live with that.

Mr McFarland: Could we meet tomorrow, Mr Chairman, because if one presentation runs into Monday, and that will be the Ulster Unionist one, my sense, given the past two days, is that it may be lengthy? [Laughter.]

When the presentations are finished, we will clearly need to have a discussion, and I suspect that that may take some time before we go on from there. If we go too far into next week, we are into the visit of the Prime Ministers and all sorts of weird and wonderful things. A sitting tomorrow morning would probably be helpful, although it would not be end of the world if both presentations continued on into Monday.

Dr Farren: I do not know about other parties, but we usually have our Assembly group meeting on a Monday morning. Although my colleagues and I are happy enough to attend the Committee then, we would prefer that Monday afternoon be devoted to the UUP, if the SDLP’s presentation is tomorrow morning. That arrangement would be eminently suitable to the SDLP, but if there is pressure not to meet tomorrow, I welcome that. Nonetheless, the other option may be more convenient for us as a party.

Mr Murphy: In the original discussion about running into tomorrow, there was almost an assumption that we would get through the three remaining presentations, starting this morning. That quite clearly will not be the case. We will be fortunate to get through Sinn Féin’s presentation. We are happy to come back in the morning to finish our presentation if we do not finish it before 4.00 pm today. That is the context in which we were talking about coming back tomorrow. I am not sure, given the length of time that presentations are now taking, whether we would get through even the SDLP’s presentation in a morning, although we may do so. We cannot really legislate for that, given the way proceedings have been going to date. We are happy to come back in the morning if that is what people require, or to get a run at this on Monday and Tuesday.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): What way is the DUP fixed?

Mr Paisley Jnr: We are happy to do something tomorrow, if that is what it takes. We can facilitate a meeting on Monday as well and indeed on Wednesday. On Tuesday, there is a problem and we cannot provide a delegation.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): If we meet tomorrow morning from 10.00 am to 12.00 noon or 12.30 pm and see if it is possible to deal with one submission, we could then look at Monday. Are we due to meet all day on Monday?

Seán has expressed an interest in the Committee sitting on Monday evening.

Dr Farren: I am expressing a party preference, because we have our group meeting on Monday, and that is an opportunity to report back and keep colleagues informed; otherwise they do not hear directly what is going on.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Does 12.00 noon on Monday suit everyone?

Dr Farren: Yes, that would be fine.

Mr Kennedy: If we meet tomorrow morning and, hopefully, on Monday from 1.30 pm until about 4.30 pm, that might allow time for the final two presentations to be tidied up.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There are a few solutions. If we meet at 1.30 pm on Monday, it will be well into the evening before we get going, whereas a 12.00 noon start would give time for party meetings and for the Committee to begin its discussions.

Mr Murphy: It may be better to make a judgement at the end of tomorrow’s business, when the presentations may have been made.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will start at 10.00 am tomorrow and deal with one presentation.

Mr Kennedy: I want to explore some of the issues that emerged from Sinn Féin’s presentation. There was some discussion about the comprehensive agreement, and I think that Mr Murphy said that the context no longer existed. Does that mean that, as far as Sinn Féin is concerned, it is dead, or that it is not possible to resurrect it in any shape or form? What is Mr Murphy’s view of the comprehensive agreement? Is it a beaten docket now as far as he is concerned?

Mr Murphy: One context of the comprehensive agreement was that the IRA would go off and do certain things. Those things have been done, so that context went in 2005. The IRA has issued a statement about its intentions and dealt with the issue of its weapons, so that context has gone. We brought issues to the table as part of the review, which carried through to the Leeds Castle talks, and into what the Governments then came up with as a proposal for a comprehensive agreement. Those proposals arose in the context that existed at the end of 2004, but that context no longer exists.

At the beginning of this year, all the parties attended meetings here, and the Governments asked us what issues of concern we had. We labelled those issues that we wanted to see addressed and that we felt would lead to the improved working of the Good Friday Agreement institutions. We also outlined those issues this morning. In 2004, the Government drafted proposals for a comprehensive agreement in a certain context. First, the agreement never happened, and, secondly, the context has changed absolutely since that time.

Mr Kennedy: Mr Murphy will, however, have heard in presentations, or in cross-questioning, the clear indication from probably both unionist parties that there are issues of concern that remain and that, presumably, relate to what was to have taken place as a result of the comprehensive agreement. Does he accept that it is unfinished business? It may not be unfinished business in his eyes, but there may be unfinished business in the eyes of other parties in relation to those events.

Mr Murphy: I assume that Mr Kennedy means in relation to events involving the IRA.

Mr Kennedy: Yes.

Mr Murphy: That may be the case, but I remind Mr Kennedy and his party that they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. In that agreement, they signed up to a mechanism whereby the issue of IRA weapons would be resolved. The body that was set up to deal with that issue has reported that it has been dealt with to its satisfaction. If Mr Kennedy wishes to revisit that part of the Good Friday Agreement and express some degree of satisfaction with how that mechanism operated, that is another issue.

I do not doubt that unionists have issues with the IRA, and with republicanism generally. As I said this morning to William McCrea, in our view these issues are best resolved through an open and honest direct dialogue among the parties, and the atmosphere would be greatly encouraged by a direct working relationship within these institutions.

Mr Kennedy: Does the Member take the view that the IICD has no further work to discharge in relation to IRA weaponry?

Mr Murphy: The IICD took that view, as far as I am aware.

Mr Kennedy: Does the Member take that view?

Mr Murphy: That is the group that my party, Mr Kennedy’s party, the SDLP and the Alliance Party agreed would carry forward this piece of work. Its report says that it is satisfied that that work in relation to the IRA has been dealt with. I am satisfied, from that report and from what the IRA has said, that that issue has been dealt with.

If unionists have ongoing issues with that, then the Ulster Unionist Party departs from the previous agreement about how the IICD would do its work — that is an issue between themselves, the IICD and the Good Friday Agreement. I remind Mr Kennedy that it was not just members of the IICD who were witnesses; there were additional witnesses, and their presence did not form part of the Good Friday Agreement discussions. However, as far as I am concerned, the IICD has done its work in relation to the IRA.

Mr Kennedy: The Member has already outlined his position on the IMC report, but clearly the IMC’s findings are important to many of the other political parties. When the IMC indicates that not all IRA weaponry has been decommissioned, the IICD should be concerned. Does the Member not share that concern?

Mr Murphy: I have made my position clear on the IMC, its mechanisms, its methods, the individuals involved and the vagueness of the allegations that it made — and the seizure upon that vagueness by parties that I believe wish to seize any opportunity to refuse to go forward in co-operation with the rest of us.

The IICD and the IMC appear to be at odds over each other’s interpretations of events, and I presume that that is something for them to resolve between themselves. The IICD was a product of an agreement between all the parties here — with the exception of the DUP — and the two Governments. The IMC was a creation of the two Governments, at the behest of Mr Kennedy’s party leader, and, therefore, in our view it does not have the same status — or any status — in relation to any agreement from the parties that signed up to the Good Friday Agreement.

Mr Kennedy: Yes, but does the Member at least accept that, given the public interest in IMC reports and what they highlight — and the expression of that interest by political parties — that there is unfinished business, to put it mildly, in relation to IRA weaponry and decommissioning?

Mr Murphy: I would accept that other parties might hold that view, but I do not. I do not think that there is unfinished business. Whether it be an IMC report or the whisperings of some senior police person or other person in the security services, if people are seeking reasons not to engage, to be concerned, or to create blockages, then people will provide them with those reasons, because othe