COMMITTEE ON THE Wednesday 25 October 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.09 am. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): Good morning. Members should ensure that all mobile phones are switched off. Today’s meeting will continue until 4 pm, and we will break for lunch as usual at 12.20 pm. I will go through the roll to determine who is attending. Mr P Robinson: Edwin Poots and I are attending in place of Lord Morrow and Dr William McCrea. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you expect a third representative to arrive? Mr P Robinson: We are always open to surprises. Mr McFarland: Danny Kennedy is due shortly. Unfortunately, I have to go to another meeting, but I return before lunch. Mr McNarry is representing himself. Mr McCarthy: I am here in place of Naomi Long. David Ford will be here shortly, but I have to leave at 11.30 am. Dr Farren: I am here as myself. Mrs Hanna: I think that I am here in place of the party leader, Mark Durkan. Mr A Maginness: I am here in place of Alasdair McDonnell. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I welcome you, Carmel. I understand that this is your first meeting of the Committee. You must have done something wrong over the past few weeks to have this inflicted on you. Mrs Hanna: Thank you very much. You are right; I must have done something wrong. Mr Murphy: I am here as myself, and John O’Dowd is here to replace Martin McGuinness. Caitríona Ruane will possibly arrive later. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It was agreed that representatives from the NIO could observe the Committee’s proceedings, and two gentlemen from the NIO are here. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) has also requested an opportunity to observe the meeting, and a lady from that office is waiting for our decision. Do members have any views on that? Mr O’Dowd: It is getting crowded in here. Mr McCarthy: Bring her in. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Staff from OFMDFM will be working on any legislation that we suggest, so they may find it useful to pick up the nuances of what we are trying to say. Is everyone happy enough? Dr Farren: Is there any risk that the observers’ benches will be full? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will have a problem with accommodation — meetings of this Committee are becoming the hottest ticket in town. The minutes of the meeting of 23 October will now be distributed. It may be useful for members to read the minutes, and particularly the way in which each party’s views have been recorded. We did not reach consensus very often at the previous meeting, which is why we have had to adopt a new mechanism. It is also important to ask whether the minutes are an accurate reflection of each party’s decisions. Mr P Robinson: Edwin and I cannot answer that, as neither of us was present at the previous meeting. I am sure that our representatives, being sensible people, made the right decision. Dr Farren: I wonder whether that is what they told Mr Robinson. Mr P Robinson: I have total trust in them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Of those who were here — Mr McFarland: The second paragraph of item 5 of the draft minutes says that we supported the proposal that paragraphs 2 and 3 of annex A of the St Andrews Agreement be enshrined in statute. However, that is not the case. The SDLP and my party objected, and I thought that the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin did not vote at all. Mr McCarthy: We were relaxed about it. Mr McFarland: Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party used the word “relaxed”. My party and the SDLP said that the Alliance Party should not be relaxed, and the DUP said that it should. Therefore, the information in that paragraph is not necessarily correct. In respect of paragraph 3 of item 5 of the draft minutes, the Alliance Party can speak for itself, but I thought that it and Sinn Féin were relaxed about that matter also. The draft minutes state that the Alliance Party and the DUP supported the proposal. 10.15 am My next question concerns Hansard. The Hansard report is fairly critical. Members spend all day in the Chamber, and the report of that day’s plenary is available the following morning. Members can then read what was said during the previous day’s debates. Given that the work of this Committee is fairly critical, I do not understand why Hansard reports cannot be ready one day after our meetings. If the reports can be made available for plenary sessions, what is the difficulty in them being available for meetings of this Committee? Given that all parties — one of which does not appear in the Chamber at all — attend meetings of this Committee, one could argue that, at the minute, this Committee’s work is more important than plenary debates. If the Hansard report were available the day after Committee meetings, the problem of knowing who voted, and how they voted, would be solved. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I understand that the Hansard report of Monday’s meeting will be available today. Mr McFarland: I understand that. However, the Hansard report is made available the morning after a plenary debate, and Members who were in the Chamber on that day can read who said what. The work of this Committee is fairly critical. The Committee’s previous meeting was on Monday — 48 hours ago — and if the Hansard report of that meeting were available, potential difficulties could be solved. In my view, the minutes are not correct, and the Hansard report would show that. Without Hansard, we are all trying to remember which vote we are talking about and who said what and when. Dr Farren: That is why we should delay approving the minutes until tomorrow. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a reasonable point. Members are committing themselves without being clear as to what exactly was decided. To make certain that there are no difficulties, at the end of each vote today we will check exactly what members believe that they have voted for or against, or what they are content with. The Business Committee’s procedure on voting is quite good. For the Speaker’s benefit, the Deputy Clerk summarises how each person voted at the end of each vote. Members who are members of the Business Committee will have seen that procedure in action and will know that it works quite well. We will make certain that members leave the room today being very clear about the decisions that have been made. Therefore, as a result of those valid concerns, we will not make any decision on the minutes. The next item on the agenda is matters arising. It was agreed that we would remind the Northern Ireland Office that we requested copies of the various additional papers that have been circulated to one or more parties during and since the discussions at St Andrews. We have not yet received anything from the Northern Ireland Office — Mr Ford: Have we not received even an acknowledgement? That is not in keeping with the NIO’s customary efficiency. The Chairman (Mr Wells): A deluge of documents has not come our way; in fact, we have not received anything. However, we can ask, but that will not guarantee that the papers will be forthcoming. Mr Ford: Given that the NIO has given us an extremely tight deadline to work to, could we request that it at least gives us the courtesy of a reply? I have no great faith that it will answer our request in the affirmative, but it would be helpful if we could at least have a negative response. That would establish that we all know where we stand. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Representatives from the NIO are here, busily writing as we speak, so no doubt they will convey that message. Mr Ford: I am not sure whether they are necessarily writing a reply to give to you before the conclusion of this morning’s session. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I would be surprised if we got all the documentation that we have asked for. Mr Ford: Oh ye of little faith, as Danny Kennedy would say in these circumstances. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am just reminding members that that instruction has been complied with. Members will recall that it was decided at the first meeting of this Committee that if parties wished to include any issues for discussion that were not listed in the various agenda, their suggestions should be with us by 24 October, which was yesterday. As yet, no party has submitted any documents to the Clerks. Mr P Robinson: Is that on additional matters for discussion? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr P Robinson: I raised additional matters, so I presume they are on the list. I know that Sinn Féin gets ultra-sensitive when this issue is raised, but we should face up to potential breaches of the terms of any agreement or any default of legislative requirements. The Government made general comments on that in paragraph 11 of the St Andrews Agreement, along the lines that they will make sure that those parties — and not others — are punished. We should face up to the issue and see if there is a way through it. It is not an easy issue to resolve; however, we would be failing in our duty if we did not consider the matters that might come under the heading of “sanction”, to use a shorthand term, although that might not be appreciated by everybody. Whether or not we get agreement, we should talk around the issue to find out where everybody stands and what might be possible. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is an opportunity to raise that in today’s discussions. Having checked the Hansard report, Mr Robinson, you clearly outlined several issues that you felt should be included. We were expecting a formal note to ask that those issues be pursued. That note would need to be submitted today, so there is still an opportunity. Mr P Robinson: I am telling you. You can take a formal note — The Chairman (Mr Wells): We reached a decision that parties would submit papers on that today. Mr P Robinson: And, as always, they can do so if they wish. I have told you what the issues are, and you can take them or not. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will take those issues at the appropriate time in the discussion. Does anyone else want to come in on that issue? Mr Ford: I assumed that the issues mentioned in the work plan drafted by Committee staff did not need to be mentioned, as they would inevitably arise during the discussions. As we seem to have enough pieces of paper floating around from everywhere but the NIO, I thought that we could be spared a few more. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Hansard report of the meeting on Monday 23 October will be available at lunch time today, so there may be an opportunity to agree the minutes of that meeting later. There are issues in Preparation for Government Committee reports that are not covered by the St Andrews Agreement; many of them are non-controversial. Alan, in particular, has regularly raised these matters, but unfortunately he is not here. This is very much his hobby horse. Do we want to discuss these issues in his absence or come back to them later? Mr P Robinson: Not if Alan will raise those issues when he returns; we will have to go over the same territory again. Mr Kennedy: It might be helpful to defer that discussion until the afternoon session. I am available until early afternoon. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members happy to wait until Alan gets back? Mr P Robinson: I think that we can contain ourselves. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We come now to the main part of the meeting, which is the discussion on paragraphs 6 to 15 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. At the previous meeting, the discussion was thrown open, and we did not ask any one party to take the lead or for a brief introduction from each party. Paragraph 6 of annex A deals with “Assembly referrals for Executive review”. We need to consider whether the proposals for such referrals contained in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 need to be amended. Who would like to lead off on that issue? Mr Murphy: I will kick off, as nobody else will. We do not support this mechanism. There is already a mechanism in the Good Friday Agreement for a petition of concern, whereby a matter is brought before the Assembly for a vote. Any 30 Members can sign a petition of concern, which requires that a cross-community vote be taken on any issue that has not already been specified as requiring a cross-community vote. It seems that the purpose of this proposal is simply to delay a ministerial decision for up to two weeks. It puts added pressure on the Speaker make a decision. The protocol adopted by the previous Assembly was that, if 30 Members signed a petition of concern, the Speaker would consider that to be evidence that a matter was serious enough. It is quite possible that that procedure would be adopted again if such a mechanism were agreed and put into legislation. The proposal in paragraph 6 makes clear that only matters covered by the ministerial code would require a collective decision by the Executive, and those matters are already agreed under the terms of the code. Some members think that the proposal gives the Assembly some additional ability to overturn ministerial decisions, but it would not. Under the current constitution of the Assembly, only one party has more than 30 Members. The Assembly would therefore leave itself open to a process whereby Members can try to frustrate or mess about with ministerial decisions and cause delays for two weeks. Basically, Members could make nuisances of themselves. That is not a requirement. There is a provision for securing cross-community voting on any issue that is brought before the Assembly. The proposal in paragraph 6 will not interfere with matters that are not already covered by the ministerial code — it will not make them subject to a ministerial or a collective decision, unless that is so required by the ministerial code. Therefore, the only purpose of this proposal is to delay ministerial decisions. The Assembly can call a debate and air its views on any decision taken by a Minister. This proposal will merely serve to delay a ministerial decision; it is just a messing mechanism that has been included at the request of one party with the ability to exercise that mechanism when it sees fit. Mr P Robinson: That is a bit of an elitist view — almost a military view, one might say: the officer class knows best, and the serfs below can never see something that the officer class might not see. The proposal in paragraph 6 of annex A is effectively a democratic control where Assembly Members are given a role. Surely any Executive worthy of their salt would not be embarrassed at the possibility that a Member might refer an issue back to them. I hope that the mechanism would be used very occasionally, if at all, but it is a safety net. It gives the Assembly the ability to democratically send back a matter to the Executive should something get through the system that concerns Members. It gives the Assembly to ability to tell the Executive that they may have missed something and that an issue should be reconsidered. The proposal does not seem to be an unreasonable provision, and it is certainly not a delaying mechanism. Why would any Member insert a proposal simply for the purpose of simply delaying a decision if that Member would be part of the Government that would be delayed by that proposal? It is a nonsense. This mechanism is a safety net that would be used very sparingly in the appropriate circumstances — in other words, when it becomes absolutely essential and when Members feel that an issue has slipped through the Executive’s net. There is no reason to get excited or worried about this matter. The mechanism would have to be used in that context, and as rarely as possible. Mr Kennedy: We will not go to the stake on this issue. The measure would presumably be available on a cross-party basis, so that any 30 Members could express their concerns about an issue. We will not object to it. Dr Farren: Far be it from us to think that any party would dare to abuse such a mechanism were it to be enshrined in law. I have made the distinction several times between matters provided for in Standing Orders and those in the ministerial code itself. Obviously, this provision would not be provided for in the ministerial code, although a Minister who ignored a referral by 30 Members — or any significant number, be that fewer than 30 — would do so at his or her peril. However, enshrining matters in law goes beyond what is really necessary, which is the distinction that the SDLP has made. What happens during periods of recess? What happens to decisions that may have to be taken urgently in the interim? Would those decisions stand? Of course, the overriding consequence of enshrining matters in law is that people outside the Assembly can interfere, through the law, in essentially political matters. They have the right to seek judicial review of decisions, of course. However, this goes beyond what the judicial review process adequately provides for. My party sees no reason why the suggestions made here need to be legally underwritten. 10.30 am Mr Ford: There seem to be two possible interpretations of this. The Sinn Féin interpretation is that it is a recipe for delay, which would be taken advantage of by those who would wish to mess about. The DUP interpretation is that it provides an opportunity for the legislature to ask the Executive to look again at issues. My party would like to see much more collectivity in the Executive than we have seen previously or are likely to see. We believe that there are significant advantages in enabling the Assembly to ask the Executive to look at matters on a collective basis. If the Executive have in fact considered matters on a collective basis, no party would seek to mess about, because Members would merely be trying, as Back-Benchers, to overturn decisions endorsed by their party leadership within the Executive. On the other hand, where the Executive have not taken as full a view as they might have done, it is not unreasonable that the Assembly should have the opportunity, if only on an occasional basis, to ask for matters to be reconsidered. Clearly there are problems around the timing, which Seán Farren has highlighted. A ministerial decision taken in the last week before the summer recess would not be considered until about two and a half months later. Nonetheless, the fundamental principle is that this is one way of underpinning collectivity. While, unlike Danny, I certainly would not die in a ditch for the precise form of wording that is there, the principle is of merit and we ought to retain it in some form. Mr P Robinson: Members are getting themselves excited needlessly. If anyone’s purpose is to delay, the ability to do so exists within the Executive. This mechanism is not needed to create delay; it only makes sense as a safety net for us all. Should some measure get through or be passed without us all being aware of it, this allows for referral. Delay is not an issue here. I assume that Members have read the qualifications that are set out here to ensure that the mechanism is not used in a vexatious way. In the sort of instance that David raised, the Speaker would have some control. In those circumstances he or she would be acutely aware and particularly sensitive. Mr Murphy: Members have had their say, and we are unlikely to convince one another of our opposing views. With respect to the Speaker’s filtering role, the practice in the last Assembly was that, where 30 Members signed a petition of concern, that became an issue of importance, and the Speaker was obliged to follow through. The DUP had petitions of concern that were active for practically the entire existence of the last Assembly. There may be mechanisms for discussion within the Executive, but in Sinn Féin’s view, and given the practice of the DUP in the last Assembly, this proposal is about Back-Benchers having their bite at decisions made by Ministers of other parties — probably Sinn Féin, in particular — whose decisions they dislike by virtue of the identities of the people taking them. As to the point that the Assembly should be able to express its democratic view on issues, the Assembly has the ability to debate any decision that a Minister takes. The Minister is obliged to attend and explain himself or herself, and the Assembly can have its say. I am not confident that this mechanism would be used sparingly, given the experience of the last Assembly and the regular use of the petition of concern mechanism by the DUP and other anti-agreement elements. Dr Farren: I ask the DUP: if there were a provision in the ministerial code that required the Executive to respond to a petition organised by a significant number of Members of the Assembly, why would it be necessary to have that requirement enshrined in law? Would it not be foolish of an Executive to ignore a petition of concern raised in that manner and brought to their attention by as many as 15 or 20 Members, as I said earlier? Would there not be pressure on the Executive due to the composition of the 15 Members who expressed concern? If those 15 Members were from a single party, their party colleague on the Executive would say that his colleagues were on his back and that they must do something to address the issue. Why enshrine the requirement in law and risk facing some of the consequences that I attempted to summarise earlier? Mr P Robinson: That is fairly obvious. Lawmakers do not assume that Governments will always act sensibly, logically or accurately. I have two things to say. First, in relation to what happened last time round, if the DUP has the desire to wreck a new Assembly, it will wreck it; it certainly does not need this mechanism to do so. If the largest party decides to wreck an Assembly, I assure you that it will be wrecked. If the agreement on which we are negotiating — and which is capable of getting the support of all the major parties and, I hope, all of the Members — is not capable of working and functioning, nothing will. So the Preparation for Government Committee must look at the legislation that we are putting forward on the basis of its being supported and accepted as a way forward. Secondly, there is an issue about the automatic delays that are brought about when 30 Members sign a petition of concern and a matter has to be returned to the Executive regardless of the Speaker’s wishes. The example cited is what happened in the last Assembly when the legislation did not give the Speaker any discretion on the issue. If 30 Members signed a petition of concern, a delay was automatic. Under this draft provision, it is clear that the Speaker does have the discretion. That distinction is being used to ensure that the provision would not be used in a vexatious way. However, we are clearly not going to get consensus. Mr Murphy: If the largest party on either side wants to wreck the Assembly, it can do so. However, if the largest party on one side intends to go into the Executive having shown to its members and its support-base that it can call to heel other parties present, this is a device through which it can publicly show or give evidence that at least it has the ability to call Ministers back and, if nothing else, delay decisions for two weeks. That is the DUP’s intent. If the DUP wanted to wreck a future Assembly, they could do so. However, if its members wanted to show that they could regularly pull all the Ministers in to review their decisions, this device would allow it to do so. In one sense the draft provision enables the DUP to say that the new Assembly is a different animal from the previous Assembly, one in which Ministers can be pulled in at the same time as operating in a functioning Executive. That is Sinn Féin’s objection. Mr P Robinson: We are going round in circles again, but I must respond to that. Any provision that is put down can be used by any 30 Members. If one party decided to abuse the provision merely to flex its own muscles and to force Ministers to toe the line, it will probably have more Ministers to be pulled into line than any other party. Why would anybody go down that road? It is a nonsense. A difficulty in any new organisation is that people will examine the new rules and look at how they can be abused. However, the new rules provide a safety net. The ability of Members to call an Executive to account is a democratic requirement that, in any other democratic chamber, would be the norm. Due to the peculiar system prevailing here, there is a view that there is an elite Executive, that no one should say anything to them and that they should be given free rein to do whatever they want. Members must be given a role. Parties must trust their MLAs. I trust the Members of my party, and I am sad that some parties are worried about their whipping arrangements. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I detect that we will not reach consensus on the proposal relating to paragraph 6 of annex A. Bearing in mind the points that were raised this morning, we must double-check people’s views. Unless I am terribly wrong, Sinn Féin is opposed. Mr Murphy: Absolutely. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The SDLP is also opposed. The Alliance Party — Mr Ford: The Alliance Party broadly supports the principle, subject to qualifications, as Hansard will record. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What about the Ulster Unionists? Mr Kennedy: The UUP is “in abstentia”, as it were. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What is the DUP’s position? Mr P Robinson: We are not sitting on the fence; we are in favour of democracy. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members seem content that we have given the issue as much of an airing as we can. Although there is no doubt on this occasion as to the parties’ positions, I suggest that the Clerk reads them out, just to be clear. The Committee Clerk: Sinn Féin opposes, the SDLP opposes, the Alliance Party broadly agrees with qualifications, the UUP abstains, and the DUP is for the amendment proposed in paragraph 6 of annex A. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members have unanimously agreed to disagree. We move on to paragraph 7. Paragraphs 7 and 8 both deal with the Pledge of Office. I am in the hands of members as to whether to take those separately or combine them into one topic for discussion. I have no strong views and merely want to know what members feel is the best way forward. Are there any thoughts on that? There would be two separate decision-making stages, but we could discuss them jointly. I propose that we take the two together and wait to hear if there is any dissension. Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 7 states that: “Reflecting the Pledge of Office, Ministers would be required to act in accordance with any relevant decisions of the Executive and the Assembly.” Are there any thoughts on that proposal? Mr P Robinson: It is a fairly straightforward provision that simply brings in section 52(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 dealing with the North/South and east/west structures, which states that: “a Minister or junior Minister shall act in accordance with any decisions of the Assembly or Executive Committee which are relevant”. Paragraph 7 expands that to its logical conclusion. There is no issue with that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If there is no issue with paragraph 7, we can move on to discuss paragraph 8. Does anyone have strong feelings on paragraph 7? Dr Farren: Yes. I will take the second part of paragraph 7 first. The Committee must carefully consider what is meant by binding Ministers to what are described as “relevant decisions” of the Assembly. Does it mean that Ministers would be bound by motions put before the Assembly, such as one that proposed to give everyone a free lunch on a Monday and would perhaps require the Minister for Social Development to ensure that it was implemented? What are we talking about? I am afraid that I cannot see a Government in any part of the world operating under that kind of provision. Mr P Robinson: Are you serious? That is what Governments in every part of the world do. They are all subject to the will of their parliamentary assemblies. Dr Farren: On budgetary matters and on matters where there is — Mr P Robinson: On every matter. That is democracy. Dr Farren: Come on, Peter. Be serious. Are you seriously suggesting that the early-day motions passed in the House of Commons are binding? Mr P Robinson: Early-day motions are not passed. They are simply put on the agenda — 10.45 am Dr Farren: Those motions that came before the Assembly offering people this, that and the other, with no regard for budgetary considerations, are not the kind that you could possibly bind Ministers to exercise their responsibility to implement. Mr P Robinson: The member is talking about the irresponsibility of parties that grandstand and pretend that they are interested in certain subjects, knowing that such legislation cannot be enacted. The discipline of having the final say on such matters is a requirement of any parliamentary Assembly. There is nothing unusual about that. It is the role of every Parliament, and it will be up to the SDLP and the DUP to ensure that when Members are tabling, or voting on, motions, the party whipping systems are such that Members do not make requests that the Executive cannot deliver. That is democracy. Dr Farren: I see the issue quite differently, because I can detect provision for irresponsibility of which parties could take advantage. Therefore, I do not see why we should enshrine that kind of provision in law. The Chairman (Mr Wells): To clarify, are you referring to the “Executive and/or the Assembly”, as stated in paragraph 7 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement? Dr Farren: I said that I was speaking to the second part of the proposal. Mr P Robinson: Therefore, although this elite group would be capable of binding anybody, the plebs in the Assembly would not be trusted at all. Is that what the member is getting at? Dr Farren: Sorry? Mr P Robinson: I am saying that the member seems to be taking the elitist view that the Executive can do no wrong and that they alone are to be trusted and relied on, but that the Assembly should have no democratic controls over them. Dr Farren: No, not at all. As I do not want this discussion to develop into a two-way conversation, I will defer to Mr Murphy. Mr Murphy: The provision that is set out in paragraph 7 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement is similar to and more in line with the Pledge of Office in annex A to strand one of the Good Friday Agreement, which obliges Members: “to act in accordance with, all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly;”. The Pledge of Office in the St Andrews Agreement obliges Members: “to act in accordance with any relevant decisions.” If a Member were to table a madcap motion, a provision in the St Andrews Agreement allows for either one side or the other — or both — to collect 30 signatures and invoke a petition of concern. I do not have a difficulty with that: it reflects the provision that exists in the Good Friday Agreement. It might qualify as slightly more appropriate, in that the relevance of decisions will be dependent on the sort of decisions that require collective decision-making under the ministerial code. Therefore, I do not have a difficulty with that provision. The Chairman (Mr Wells): May I check whether that applies to both the Assembly and the Executive? Mr Murphy: Annex A to strand one of the Good Friday Agreement refers to both: “all decisions of the Executive Committee and the Assembly.” The Chairman (Mr Wells): We may have to split the vote, because I think that while Seán is perfectly happy with the Executive, he is not happy with the Assembly. Mr P Robinson: Seán is against the Belfast Agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Seán, I am not 100% certain, are you against the Executive, the Assembly, or both? Dr Farren: Sorry? The Chairman (Mr Wells): In other words, paragraph 7 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement states that: “Ministers would be required to act in accordance with any relevant decisions of the Executive and/or Assembly.” Is the member saying that he is happy to act in accordance with Executive decisions but not Assembly decisions? Dr Farren: I am happy with Executive decisions, but I am raising questions about the nature of decisions in the Assembly. Mr Ford: Not surprisingly, in its efforts to enhance collectivity, the Alliance Party believes that all motions should be bound by Executive decisions. The Assembly’s problem lies in deciding which decisions are relevant. Given the looseness with which no-day-named motions were debated in the past, it would be a problem if Ministers were to feel constrained by decisions taken by a small number of Members late in the afternoon. However, the party Whips need to ensure that those decisions do not happen in that way. I presume that a relevant decision is taken — Mr P Robinson: Decisions that are relevant to each Minister’s Department, if that is what paragraph 7 means. Mr Ford: If that is all that it means, it becomes a rather interesting issue for the Whips of Executive parties. Speaking as someone whose party is not likely to be in the Executive as it is in its current form, it is no bad thing to keep them on their toes. Mr Kennedy: I largely agree with Mr Ford, which will worry everybody — [Laughter]. Mr Ford: Especially David Ford. Mr Kennedy: The emphasis on the word “relevant” is important and should be outlined in proper detail. During the previous Assembly, there were opportunities late on some afternoons to create a Santa’s wish list, and we all experienced that. Parties might find it problematical to address that issue in any relevant way. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Before we move on to participation in the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) and the British-Irish Council (BIC), do members have any other points to make on that aspect of the Pledge of Office? Similar arguments will no doubt apply to our discussion on the NSMC and BIC, but we can come back to those when we progress to voting. Paragraph 8 of annex A of the St Andrews Agreement states that the Pledge of Office: “would require that Ministers would participate fully in the Executive and NSMC/BIC, and would observe the joint nature of the office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister.” What do members feel about that? Mr Murphy: Sinn Féin supports that recommendation. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does the DUP support that? Mr P Robinson: We feel that it is unnecessary. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Ulster Unionist Party? Mr Murphy: They are unnecessary as well. Mr Kennedy: The UUP will give its own view, if that is all right. Mr Murphy: I am talking about the party, not its view. Mr Kennedy: We shall see. The rule of law is important and needs to be incorporated into the Pledge of Office. If that happens, the UUP will be content. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Four parties are content. Will the DUP expand on its view that the provisions of paragraph 8 are unnecessary? Mr P Robinson: The Pledge of Office itself will require Ministers to participate fully in the Executive — the law will ensure that. I recall that the North/South matter came to the courts, and a determination was made that there could not be an avoidance — as the First Minister sought — of such responsibilities. I am not getting excited about this at all. If there is an agreement that the Democratic Unionist Party can endorse, it will play a full part in all its working arrangements. From the DUP’s point of view, those provisions are unnecessary because we will already be fulfilling them. That is effectively why I am saying that those provisions are unnecessary. We will not support an agreement, if an agreement is eventually supported, only to be unprepared to work it in all its aspects. Mr Kennedy: In the UUP’s view, it is critical that we have some discussion on the final sentence in paragraph 8 of annex A, which states: “Before the Government legislates on the pledge of office it will consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law.” I do not think that there have yet been sufficient discussions to nail down the issue of the rule of law. It would be important to at least engage in those discussions and see where that is taking us or how it is going to be dealt with in the Committee. There was a brief discussion of policing and law issues on Monday, but no timetable or conclusion was reached on how the Committee would deal with it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The difficulty, Danny, as you know, is that we are under a very tight deadline of the end of this month, and if we are going to have those discussions, we are going to have to have them today. Mr Kennedy: We are prepared for that, but — The Chairman (Mr Wells): It seems a shock to the system to have to sit down now and deal with these issues without prior warning, but we must. Mr Kennedy: Gird your loins. Mr Poots: Chairman, the re-establishment of any Executive will hinge on this issue. We can talk about everything else, but the rule of law is the one issue on which the Assembly will either stand or fall. Mr McNarry: The UUP has raised the issue because of its singular importance. Would it be helpful to have a timetable? From the unionist perspective, I think that it would be very helpful. Unionists are beginning to understand the mechanisms that Sinn Féin requires to give it the cover that it needs on giving its support to the police. However, this issue is important now, particularly given the wording. Does Sinn Féin agree that it would be helpful to unionists in particular if timescales were given from which the public could at least determine or deduce good faith and good intentions? There is no timescale, and it would be very helpful if Sinn Féin could give one; it would be very constructive to this discussion. Mr Murphy: First, to correct David’s impression, we are not looking for mechanisms to give us cover. There is a timescale to take a decision in relation to these matters. There are matters to be resolved in the interim, and they are not resolved yet. The timescale set out in the St Andrews Agreement is that the restoration of the institutions must happen by 26 March 2007. I am not responsible for either bringing a proposition to our ardchomhairle or having the ardchomhairle decide whether and when an Ard-Fheis is called. That is the process that needs to take place, because the party decides democratically whether to go with this. The timescales are set out in the St Andrews Agreement; both Governments are aiming towards 26 March 2007. Mr McNarry: I am grateful; my choice of word was “cover”, but the Member’s choice is better if it is going to lead to a decision. It is precisely on that point that it is imperative that there be a decision. However, the timescale clearly cannot point to the date that the Member said, otherwise we can wrap this up because we cannot really go any further with it and it should be held in abeyance, which is not in the spirit of things as I understand them. All I can do at this stage is to impress on the Member that there is a genuine need to know what Sinn Fein’s timescale is. It would be very useful to the process if that were forthcoming. I can only ask and make that point to the Member to perhaps reflect on what he has just said and see if there could be an improved timescale or a more open and transparent timescale that would not complicate matters for Sinn Féin or its structures or procedures but would help this process. Mr Murphy: I am not sure where the confusion lies, because that is the timescale that people are working to. I hope that it can be achieved. There are matters to be progressed, and there are matters in relation to certainty as to where we are going with all of this that will become clearer by the end of November. 11.00 am The member talks about an air of expectation or understanding. We had an understanding that we were to have a Programme for Government Committee meeting last week. We certainly hope that meeting can take place soon. There is a timescale to resolve these issues, and there is a clear understanding about what needs to happen. Our party has a democratic process that we must go through; I cannot take a decision that will pre-empt that. I am not responsible for the mechanics of working that out either. That is the broad time frame in which we are working, and our intention is to succeed within that time frame. Mr McNarry: I appreciate that, Chairman. The issue has been raised because it is important from the unionist perspective and, with all due respect, previous assurances from Sinn Féin have not been worth anything to unionists. Mr Murphy: The member can seek an assurance from me now. Mr McNarry: If the member can give me an assurance now, fine. If not, could he reflect on the assurance and come back to me? Mr Murphy: That is contradictory. If an assurance is not worth anything, why is the member seeking one? The assurance will be when this process is concluded. Mr McNarry: I said “previous assurances”. Mr Murphy: I assure the member that Sinn Féin will deal with assurances as best as it possibly can, and we intend to get a positive outcome. That is my assurance. Mr McNarry: All that we need is a timescale; that would be helpful. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next members to speak are Seán Farren and Edwin Poots. Dr Farren: I am not sure where this discussion is taking us in relation to the matters before us. Either we pledge ourselves to upholding policing and the rule of law — or the rule of law however it is phrased — when the Executive is formed or we do not. Mr McNarry: It is a bit too late then, Seán. Dr Farren: There will hardly be an Executive if issues in respect of supporting policing and the rule of law are reneged upon. That is outside the current remit of this Committee. Interesting as it may be to get precise dates for when agreement will happen, we are, I assume, talking about the Pledge of Office. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are not talking about the timetable; we are talking about the content. Dr Farren: We are talking about the content of the Pledge of Office. Members will recall the previous discussions on the Pledge of Office during our meetings in the summer. It was generally agreed, without any dissent, that wording would be found for the Pledge of Office that would commit Ministers to upholding the rule of law. All that we are trying to do is to formally agree that such wording should be incorporated into the Pledge of Office. Do I now hear disagreement to that commitment? The Pledge of Office will be taken in the future; it will be taken tomorrow. Mr Kennedy: My original point is that part of paragraph 8 of annex A that states: “Before the Government legislates on the pledge of office it will consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law.” We have not had those discussions, and, however difficult it is, we need to have those discussions because it is the elephant in the room. Mr Poots: As regards where Sinn Féin is currently coming from and the timescale to which it is operating, I can see that it will create a difficulty for itself with timetabling. A nomination process for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister designate will take place before 26 March 2007, as set out in the St Andrew’s Agreement. That nomination process will consider the Pledge of Office. Sinn Féin will not, I assume, want to leave its nominee without the support of the party. That indicates that Sinn Féin will not nominate a Deputy First Minister designate prior to that date but will let the situation run on to 24 or 26 March 2007, therefore leaving its nominee in considerable difficulty. Mr P Robinson: There are a couple of points that I genuinely do not understand about this. Sinn Féin must take a decision before 10 November to indicate its acceptance of the principles of the St Andrews Agreement. That of itself is a decision to accept paragraph 6 of that agreement on support for the police. Either the body that takes that decision has authority to give that approval, or it has not; if it has, surely that same level of authority must allow a Member who is designated to be a Minister to take a pledge to the very same effect that he or she would have accepted in order to pass the test before 10 November. That is the issue that I have difficulty with. The matter for unionists is this: we recognise that many people in this room do not trust us, and those people recognise that we do not trust them. On that basis, there must be some certainty about each step that is taken in any process. The core of the St Andrews Agreement was the “twin pillars”, as the Secretary of State described them. The first is the Democratic Unionist Party’s acceptance of power-sharing; the second is Sinn Féin’s support for policing, the courts and the rule of law. Therefore, the essential element is that nobody moves ahead in the process. For instance, Ian Paisley cannot be expected to give his endorsement to his end of the agreement and hope that somewhere down the line — and nobody can timetable this for us at present — the Ard-Fheis will meet and consider its part of the agreement. Dr Paisley would be a fool if he were to do that. Those decisions must be brought along together. Unless we have an answer to Danny’s question about the timetable for the decision-making process within Sinn Féin, we cannot really timetable or co-ordinate what will happen on 24 November. It is not that the DUP is being difficult; it is a case of ensuring that everything is in place when it is supposed to be, and that one person is not ahead of the field. Mr Murphy: I anticipate that the Sinn Féin ardchomhairle will be in a position to respond — as it was asked to — by 10 November. A decision on policing requires the support of the party, which is the Ard-Fheis. I am not responsible for logistics. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Could you explain the difference between those two? Mr Murphy: The ardchomhairle is the party executive, which is a group of about 50 people; the Ard-Fheis is the entire membership of the party. I appreciate that there are other sizeable parties here, but Sinn Féin stretches from here to Kerry, and calling the party together is quite a significant undertaking. I anticipate that the ardchomhairle will be in a position to respond to the St Andrews document by 10 November. An Ard-Fheis is necessary to take the decision on policing; it is the only body that can take that decision in a democratic party. Mr P Robinson: The decision on policing is contained in the St Andrews Agreement. Is Mr Murphy saying, therefore, that the ardchomhairle will take a decision to proceed before 10 November and notify the Government of its intent, but will not give approval to the section on policing in the St Andrews Agreement? Mr Murphy: I am saying that the ardchomhairle will be in a position to respond to the St Andrews document, and that is what is required of it. If Mr Robinson was not clear about the way that it would pan out — and it appears from the DUP’s non-attendance at the Programme for Government meeting that his party is not clear —whatever understandings that the DUP had from the British Government obviously did not follow through for it. Sinn Féin has always been clear. The big difficulty is that although we are having this discussion through the Chair, the DUP would probably have a much clearer position on how Sinn Féin processes these matters if it had direct discussions with Sinn Féin, rather than relying on the British Government to give their interpretation of what Sinn Féin intends to do, and us relying on the British Government for their interpretation of what the DUP intends to do. Mr Kennedy: If press reports are to be believed — and they are not always to be believed — Mr Murphy is showing an attractive modesty this morning. Mr Murphy, along with Martin Ferris and Mary Lou McDonald, has been appointed by the ardchomhairle to conduct the consultation. It would be very helpful if he could tell us, modesty aside, when he expects the consultation exercise to report and in what detail, unless that is a closed area to the rest of us. Mr Murphy: We will conduct an exhaustive consultation covering the island’s 32 counties. I anticipate that the ardchomhairle will respond to the document by 10 November. Consultation will go on beyond that, but, initially, it is to allow the ardchomhairle to make its response. Those who attend the ardchomhairle are mandated by various sections of the party. Mr Kennedy: Presumably, the ardchomairle will say whether it is prepared to recommend the calling of an Ard-Fheis. Mr Murphy: I cannot pre-empt what the ardchomhairle will say; it is like the Ulster Unionist Council in that respect. Mr Kennedy: I cannot pre-empt what the Ulster Unionist Council will say either. Mr Murphy: The ardchomhairle will be in a position to respond by 10 November. Mr McNarry: We still have our block booking of the Ulster Hall; if you need a slot, I am sure that we can oblige. Mr P Robinson: The Democratic Unionist Party is clear about the processes. Let no one be in any doubt: what is required is in the St Andrews Agreement, which was set out by the Government. Paragraph 10 of the St Andrews Agreement states that parties need to confirm their acceptance of the implementation of the agreement by 10 November. That acceptance will include paragraph 6 of the agreement, which calls for the full endorsement of the criminal justice system and of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. How can the ardchomhairle confirm its acceptance of the agreement, but only the Ard-Fheis can make any change to Sinn Féin’s stance on policing? Should we discount what is said before 10 November? Mr Murphy: Let me draw Peter’s attention to annex D, which is the “Timetable for Implementation of the St Andrews Agreement”. The first paragraph asks parties to respond by 10 November. The DUP has already scuppered the Programme for Government Committee meeting on 17 October, at which parties were to be represented at leadership level. The DUP is clear that the agreement that was reached at St Andrews is that of the two Governments, and I presume that the DUP intends to respond to the agreement by 10 November, as do we. Lest anyone be in any doubt, we intend to make all the elements of the St Andrews Agreement work; we are not attempting to resile from any element of it. It is a pity that the Programme for Government Committee did not meet last week; party leaders sitting around the same table, talking about working on a Programme for Government would have sent a powerful signal. We intend to make the St Andrews Agreement work; if others want to poke through the entrails, I will respond to them where I can. However, Sinn Féin’s response requires decision-making in the party, and I cannot pre-empt such decisions. Mr P Robinson: This issue is not subject to anything in the ether or in the bottom drawer of party leaders; it is in the St Andrews Agreement. Annex D is simply a timetable for the ease of lazy journalists. Paragraph 10 of the agreement is very clear: what is needed is acceptance of the agreement, not a response to it, so that we can move to the next step. Acceptance must include the terms of the agreement. How can one accept the St Andrews Agreement as the basis for moving forward if one is not prepared to accept paragraph 6? If Sinn Féin does not accept paragraph 6 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement before 10 November, everything will move months down the road until the Ard-Fheis makes that decision. I accept that parties have their own procedures — some more awkward than others — and some parties take longer than others to convene. I am not quibbling about whether extra weeks or months are required. I am merely saying that no one party should be asked to jump before another. Everyone must be certain that they are heading in the same direction and that the timetable ensures that the decision makers determine with certainty that they take the decisions that matter so that we can move to the next stage. 11.15 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am conscious that the SDLP and the Alliance Party have not been heavily involved in this debate. Do they wish to contribute? Dr Farren: In order not to repeat what I said a moment ago, we are discussing the Pledge of Office and I understand that a response must be given by 10 November of the parties’ intention to honour and accept all the commitments in the St Andrews Agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I have given parties some latitude, because the NIO will reflect on the discussions. However, Dr Farren is correct: we are discussing the content of the Pledge of Office, not timetables, conferences or the Ard-Fheis. Dr Farren: Presumably the NIO will reflect not only on the Pledge of Office, but on everything else in the St Andrews Agreement. If we muster our collective wisdom on this issue, can we say that we accept that the wording in the Pledge of Office should contain something along the lines of that which we assented to during our discussions about upholding the rule of law? Am I mistaken, or is that the main issue concerning the Pledge of Office? The Chairman (Mr Wells): In a previous report, the Committee on the Preparation for Government decided in principle that such wording would be included. Do members wish to get down to the nitty-gritty of devising a Pledge of Office or suggesting the wording for it, or do they simply wish to continue with the view that support for policing and the criminal justice system should be included in it? Mr P Robinson: If the Pledge of Office is to be accepted, it must be consistent with the terms laid down in the St Andrews Agreement. I do not think that Members will want less or more in the Pledge of Office, but it must be consistent. The St Andrews Agreement is not a legal document; therefore, it must be drafted and put into the appropriate language. That is the weight that people would expect to be attached to it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members content with the phraseology that the Pledge of Office must be consistent, rather than going any further and tying down the exact wording of it? It is a useful proposal, but are members content with it? Mr Murphy: No, members are not content with it. We are being asked whether we agree with the contents of paragraph 8 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. We are not being asked whether we agree to a discussion that has not happened: we are being asked to agree with the clauses concerning attendance at meetings and the joint nature of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. We are broadly in favour of that. However, other issues concerning further elements of a Pledge of Office, such as law and order, putting Northern Ireland first, or other issues that are exercising the DUP, need to be discussed. We are not content to prescribe those issues before they are properly discussed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is more than that, because paragraph 8 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement states that HM Government: “consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law.” Mr Murphy: Let us have those discussions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is what we are doing. Mr Murphy: I have seen no proposition to recommend wording about policing matters and the rule of law for inclusion in a Pledge of Office; if there were, I might reach a conclusion on it. If members want to set aside time to develop that discussion, that is fair enough. However, today we are to discuss paragraph 8 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement, which is specific on some areas of the Pledge of Office and less specific about any further discussions on other areas about which members feel exercised. Although time should be set aside to draw some conclusions on the Pledge of Office, I have seen nothing so far that leads me to any particular conclusion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The difficulty is timetabling. The Committee must have this issue tied down by 31 October. Time is just not on our side. However, I agree that we must deal with the Pledge of Office. Mr Murphy: Of course we can discuss the Pledge of Office. The British Government are facilitating discussions on what the parties would like included in an amended Pledge of Office. We can have a parallel discussion in this Committee if we want to, but, as far as I am aware, Peter Hain has been exercising himself in this matter for the past number of days. If members think that discussions in this Committee can contribute to the Government’s process, that is well and good, and I am willing to take part. However, bearing in mind that there are other issues to be dealt with, if our discussions would merely lead us down a lengthy sidetrack, we should move on. Mr O’Dowd: It is also worth remembering, Chairman, that the deadline to which the parties are working is 10 November. The Committee’s end date of 31 October may have been set for a while, but 10 November is the closing date for party consultation. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee had no choice in that date. Mr O’Dowd: The Committee does have a choice. The parties that are members of the Committee have a choice. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Secretary of State has advised that the Committee’s discussions must be completed by 31 October. Mr Murphy: If the parties reach any consensual views that are different to what is in the St Andrews Agreement, the Government will reflect that in their future plans. However, the Committee’s task is to discuss the content of the agreement to determine what level of consensus can be reached. I do not know whether we will achieve consensus on any additional elements that could be included in the Pledge of Office. If members want to, we can discuss that issue for a couple of days, but I do not know that we will reach consensus. Mr Ford: Like Seán Farren, I have listened while the decision-making structures and timetables of two or three parties were discussed. Now that we seem to have reached a point where we could discuss the potential issues that might be covered in the amended Pledge of Office, particularly support for the rule of law, we seem to be running away. Whatever discussions the Secretary of State may or may not hold, it would surely be more beneficial if the Committee could agree some broad principles for the amended Pledge of Office, even though I suspect that we would not agree its wording. If members want to get into that discussion, I have some suggestions that I would like to make, but it appears that Conor believes that we should not bother. Mr Murphy: My reservations are based on the Committee’s deadline of 31 October. My understanding is that if the Committee reaches any consensus on the matters in annex A to the St Andrews Agreement that is contrary to what is contained within it, the British Government will consider that when drafting the relevant legislation. I do not see the Committee reaching consensus on any of the Pledge of Office issues. We could have a lengthy discussion, but if we are to operate to the time frame that we agreed on Monday, the likelihood of reaching consensus is remote. Mr Ford: Paragraph 8 of annex A states that the Government: “will consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions.” On that basis, should this Committee not at least endeavour to reach consensus? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Quite a few members wish to speak. Mr Kennedy: From what Conor Murphy has said, it appears that the real action is taking place elsewhere, in meetings with the Secretary of State. That raises the question of what we are all doing here. Why are we wasting our time giving cover to those allegedly private meetings? We need to address the issues that have been indicated, and: “the Government will consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law”. The place for those discussions is here. However difficult a conversation it might be, the Ulster Unionist Party is happy to have those discussions in this Committee. I seriously object to any suggestion that the real action is happening in another place with the Secretary of State. Mr P Robinson: In the St Andrews Agreement, the Secretary of State has indicated that he will: “consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law.” We have had such a discussion, and it does not appear that we will get agreement. I simply want to state the view of my party that a Pledge of Office on policing and the rule of law must be consistent with paragraph 6 of the St Andrews Agreement, which requires Ministers to support policing and to encourage others to support policing, the courts and the rule of law. That is where we stand, and I hope that it is where everybody else will stand eventually. Dr Farren: Chairman, I am always puzzled by the extent to which other parties, particularly Sinn Féin, seem to prefer meeting the British Government directly rather than directly dealing with fellow Irish men and women around this table. It should not be beyond our wit to arrive at a general agreement to include a commitment to upholding the rule of law in the Pledge of Office. The details of what is meant by the rule of law are for a different debate. The Pledge of Office, as I understand it, is not to contain details but general commitments that Ministers make to the requirements of their office. I would have thought that we could agree the necessary language, given the general agreement that I thought that we had reached on this issue in the middle of August. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is in line with what Mr Robinson said. I am happy to take a separate proposal on the issue. We must get parties to make decisions on several matters. Equally, however, if a member or party wishes to make a proposal, I am more than happy to take it. I remind members of the issues on which we must take decisions: that Ministers be required to act in accordance with the relevant decisions of the Executive, accountability being split between the Executive and the Assembly; that Ministers be required to act in accordance with relevant decisions of the Assembly; that Ministers participate fully in the Executive, the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council; and that Ministers will observe the joint nature of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Annex A also states that the Pledge of Office should reflect the outcome of the Preparation for Government Committee’s discussions on policing and the rule of law. That is a very difficult issue, as we have not really reached agreement on those matters. Is it worth trying to get the first few issues out of the way and then return to policing? Dr Farren: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): First, paragraph 7 states: “Ministers would be required to act in accordance with any relevant decisions of the Executive”. What are the views of the five parties on that? Mr Murphy: The Good Friday Agreement already stipulates that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sinn Féin is therefore saying yes. The Alliance Party said yes. The SDLP — Dr Farren: The SDLP is very relaxed. Mr P Robinson: Loosen your tie, then. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that consensus? Mr P Robinson: The DUP said yes. [Laughter.] Mr Kennedy: We have reached a historic point — or is it hysterical? Dr Farren: We are happy to retain what is in annex A to strand one of the Good Friday Agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that a yes, Seán? Dr Farren: I try not to eat my words too often. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are taking that as consensus. Dr Farren: OK. Mr P Robinson: Bank it and rush on to the next issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): How does the Committee feel about the statement in paragraph 7 of the St Andrews Agreement that Ministers would be required to act in accordance with any relevant decisions of the Assembly? Mr P Robinson: I think that we all accept it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I think that Séan made a distinction between the two documents. Dr Farren: I did. If the member would care to go back to annex A of the Good Friday Agreement — Mr P Robinson: He is still hanging loose. Dr Farren: It is the bible that we are often accused of not wanting to see changed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus that Ministers would be required — Mr Kennedy: We will abstain from that. Are you referring to paragraph 7 of annex A? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr Kennedy: We will abstain from that — just to make it awkward for other members. Mr P Robinson: So much for parliamentary democracy. 11.30 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 8 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement states that: “Ministers would participate fully in the Executive and NSMC/BIC, and would observe the joint nature of the office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister”. What are members’ views on that? Mr P Robinson: I am as relaxed about is as Alban is. Dr Farren: We will accept it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What are Sinn Féin’s views? Mr Murphy: We support it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That means that there is consensus on that paragraph. Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That gets all of paragraph 7 and a portion of paragraph 8 out of the way. David had a suggestion, John had a view on it, and Peter had an idea as to how we could square this quite difficult circle. Members may wish to suggest a wording on those on which we can agree. At the minute, paragraph 8 merely states that the Pledge of Office should reflect the outcome of the Committee’s discussions on policing and the rule of law. Frankly, that is — Mr Murphy: That is someone’s proposition: it is not the wording that is actually in the annex. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is actually — Mr Murphy: Paragraph 8 says that the Government will: “consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law.” It does not say that the Pledge of Office should reflect the outcome of discussions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I do not really know what the problem is that we have to consider at the minute, because we have not really reached any sort of consensus or agreement on it. Mr Murphy: That is fair enough, but we need to be accurate in what we are saying about what the outcome of this process will be. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Obviously, the aim is to reach a common position on the matter; however, I do not think that that will happen. Dr Farren: Can we reflect on this point and come back to it later if a precise wording occurs to us? Mr P Robinson: I am a bit worried about making the precise wording an issue. No matter what we do, draftsmen will turn it into the language of a Bill. We are probably safer giving the general sense that it has to be consistent with — Dr Farren: Did we not already do that in the August debates? Mr P Robinson: Yes, except that the voting was not such that we clearly identified who was voting. Dr Farren: No dissent was expressed. Mr P Robinson: It was. Dr Farren: Was it? Mr P Robinson: I do not think that Sinn Féin signed up for policing and the rule of law at that stage. However, it may wish to do so today. Mr Murphy: I do not recall giving consent in August to any proposition on this matter. However, I am happy to discuss it and to try to find agreement on it. To correct what Seán said earlier, I do not have a preference for discussing and resolving this with the British Government. Other parties came here with the express purpose of merely scoping the issues and not negotiating on them. The Secretary of State has discussed that with parties. I would prefer it if the action were decided on by this Committee, but that is not the reality. We are quite happy to discuss those issues here, make propositions and take them back to our party to get its views. The only reason why I suggested moving on was that we have a tight timescale to work to, and I do not anticipate getting a consensus at this meeting on some wording that is to be contained in a Pledge of Office. Mr Poots: Can we scope out whether there is agreement on paragraphs 5 and 6? Mr Ford: Clearly, there are issues about the Pledge of Office. It was said earlier that it is one of the twin pillars around which the agreement will be advanced, if it is advanced at all. Given the sensitivities and the timetables of the parties in general, and Sinn Féin in particular, the question is whether we can agree that there are broad principles of what is likely to be appropriate for inclusion in the Pledge of Office, subject to all other matters being agreed satisfactorily. I do not know whether that would allow Sinn Féin members to make progress on the matter with the remaining Committee members. I would have thought that paragraph 6 of the main part of the agreement was a good point from which to start a discussion. The issue is whether members are prepared to discuss the possibility that that is a point at which that they will arrive in the future, even though they cannot commit to it today. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is similar to Mr Poots’ suggestion. Mr Ford: Yes, it is similar to what Edwin said. Dr Farren: Paragraph 82(e) of the Committee’s ‘Report on Institutional Issues’ says that: “It was agreed that … A requirement or commitment to uphold the rule of law.” What does that mean? There is a footnote: “Official Report 14 August 2006 paragraph 2464-2590.” The Chairman (Mr Wells): It actually says that it was agreed that “Further consideration be given” to that issue. It was one of the many issues that were parked in the huge multi-storey car park. Dr Farren: I appreciate that. However, in the context of that discussion, if there was no intention that we would commit ourselves to the rule of law then that should have been stated. Mr Murphy: It is quite a leap from saying that we shall have further discussion on a requirement to uphold the rule of law, to saying that that means that there should be a clause in the Pledge of Office. Sinn Féin has always been, and still is, prepared to discuss those issues. However, there is quite a leap from one discussion to the other. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there any merit in having a discussion of paragraphs 5 and 6 of annex A the St Andrews Agreement in order to agree or disagree on whether they represent the best way forward? Both the Alliance Party and Edwin — [Interruption.] Mr Poots: My colleague will have to resign. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That would indicate to me that someone’s mobile phone is switched on. Mr Kennedy: The Chairman is not a bit slow. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a capital offence in this Committee. Mr Poots: He is not upholding the rule of law. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are parties content that paragraphs 5 and 6 reflect their views on the issue? Several parties have indicated that they wish to tie down what various members feel about those paragraphs. Perhaps there could be consensus on that. Mr Murphy: Chairman, do you now want to leap from the agreed programme of work on clauses and go back into the document that represents the two Governments’ views of how they want matters to go forward? We agreed a work programme on Monday — and I appreciate that you were not in the Chair at that meeting. We specified the various clauses and paragraphs that we would deal with. We laid those out. If you want to change the course of the meeting and go back into the two Governments’ view of how matters should go forward and discuss that — “scope them out”, as I believe Edwin Poots suggested — that is fair enough. I am content to go along with that, but we must be clear about it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You would be entirely correct if it were not also included that the NIO and Her Majesty’s Government are going to consider our discussions on policing and the rule of law. That is why we are having the discussion. We are not just dealing with the mechanics. Mr Murphy: There is a format of this Committee that deals specifically with those matters. I am content for those matters to be discussed, whether by us or by the other format. However, when I read that, I assumed that it meant that there would be an attempt to pull together that format of the Committee to deal with other outstanding issues as well, including the time frame for transfer of powers; the model by which those powers would be transferred; and outstanding policing and justice issues. The Chairman (Mr Wells): In an ideal world, the matter would be referred to the policing and justice format of the Preparation for Government Committee. It would then go off and spend days discussing the matter. One problem with the date of 31 October is that the legislation must be drafted. We must give some indication to Government as to what is required. They need that by the end of October. We do not have the luxury of sending the matter off to our policing experts. There is obviously a reluctance to discuss the matter in detail. However, everyone agrees that it is a crucial issue. This is the only opportunity that we will have to discuss it before the end of the month. Mr Kennedy: Chairman, is it not perfectly possible for the format of the Preparation for Government Committee that deals with policing and justice issues to convene in advance of 31 October? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It would probably have to be this Friday. Mr P Robinson: Have I missed something? Sinn Féin has told us that it cannot take decisions on policing, courts and the rule of law unless certain structures inside the party have taken decisions. We can dance around that for as long as we like, but will it change anything? We can pull up Committees and Subgroups, but it will not change anything. My concern — and it is now a greater concern than when I came into the room — is that I am no longer sure what decision the Sinn Féin ardchomhairle is going to take before 10 November. If it is not a decision that endorses the St Andrews Agreement as the way forward and, therefore, acknowledges the police, why should the rest of us endorse it if that party is not going to? Mr O’Dowd: Mr Chairman, may I ask the DUP to tell us what decision its party executive is going to take before 10 November? Of course, it cannot tell us. They tell us that they are consulting with their party members. We are in consultation with our members, as are the UUP, the SDLP and the Alliance Party. The Secretary of State may have set a target of 31 October, but it is not in the St Andrews Agreement. If he wanted 31 October as a deadline, it should have been included. The DUP cannot tell us what decision its party executive is going to reach in relation to the St Andrews Agreement before 10 November. We cannot tell them what decision our party is going to reach before 10 November. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The point is this; if that is the case, is there any merit whatsoever in forming the policing and justice — Mr P Robinson: I have not been clearly understood, or made myself clear enough. The issue is not whether there is a decision to be taken today, or by the executives of Sinn Féin or the DUP — or the other parties, lest they think that they can stay out of this loop. Let us be very clear. We are not talking about the ability to take a decision before 10 November. It is whether the decision taken on 10 November by both parties is one that is going to include the terms of the St Andrews Agreement, those terms being the basis for moving forward. I have been told today that the only people who can take a decision in relation to policing are the Ard-Fheis. The indications are that the Ard-Fheis is not going to meet before 10 November, so how do we get a decision on the terms of the St Andrews Agreement if the Ard-Fheis is not going to meet, with it being the only occasion on which a decision on policing can be taken? That is what I am asking. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Perhaps it would be helpful, Mr Murphy, if you could give us a timetable, because there are dates — [Laughter.] Mr Murphy: Bring back Francie Molloy. Mr Kennedy: You will, you will, you will. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am not trying to get — Mr Murphy: I know you are not trying to do anything. Mr McNarry: You should have asked that question two hours ago. Mr Murphy: I am not involved in deciding what the logistics are. It was always clear that the Ard-Fheis would take the decisions in relation to our attitude to supporting policing arrangements. I anticipate that the ardchomhairle will be in a position — as is required under annex D — to respond to the propositions contained in the St Andrews Agreement by 10 November. That is how I see things panning out. We have undertaken a period of consultation, as have other parties, and we are trying to do that as speedily and as exhaustively as possible. That is the way forward within our party structures. Mr Poots: Where Mr O’Dowd appeared to be confused was that the rest of us will probably be in a position by 10 November to give a yea or nay. We are guessing that Sinn Féin can only give a qualified yea or nay, because the ardchomhairle may have met while the Ard-Fheis may not. To that extent, how strong is that? It comes back to the point that if we have a discussion on policing and the rule of law, and if certain matters are agreed and the Government proceeds with legislation, is Sinn Féin going to leave their nominee exposed on that date, when he or she is saying yes to policing before the Ard-Fheis has given its approval? Dr Farren: May I pose a question to Conor Murphy? Like everyone here present, I respect the stages through which a party has to go. Does that preclude Sinn Féin from saying now that a Pledge of Office taken in the future should contain a commitment to uphold the rule of law? At this stage, can it not say that a pledge would contain such a phrase? I fully appreciate and respect that there are certain decision-making processes to be gone through, but this is a pledge for the future, not for today. 11.45 pm The Pledge of Office should contain a commitment, among others, to uphold the rule of law. If a person cannot answer yes to that, the discussion not only on this issue but on many others is almost redundant. How can parties commit themselves to a Pledge of Office, a ministerial code or indeed anything that is enshrined in law, if they say that they have to go through their processes before they will make any kind of commitment? Debate could not take place until after those decisions had been made. Mr Murphy: Our party is considering these matters. It was proposed that the commitment to justice and the rule of law be considered further by this Committee, and that is reflected in the document. If, as Séan said, there is a proposal to include such a commitment in the Pledge of Office, Sinn Féin will consider it when it is made. Sinn Féin is considering how those commitments can be reflected. Mr McNarry: I have read annex D of the St Andrews Agreement, yet having heard what has been said this morning, I wonder whether the Government misunderstood, were mistaken or were misled about the significance of consulting the “Sinn Fein Ard Comhairle”. The significance of consulting the ardchomhairle is not being borne out by what we are hearing in the Committee, which is that the outcome will depend on the Ard-Fheis. The process in annex D is that the ardchomhairle will be consulted — there is no mention of an Ard-Fheis. If the Government misunderstood or misread the process — or were misled — then none of us has fully understood the ardchomhairle’s importance to the outcome. It is now the timetable of the Ard-Fheis that is desperately being sought. Can the Government do anything about this, given that annex D belongs to them? When one reads the annex, it seems that the ardchomhairle has to respond by 10 November. I do not want to be too inquisitive, but the question is pertinent: how will Sinn Féin respond through the ardchomhairle on 10 November other than by saying — and I hope that I am interpreting correctly what you said — that it has had its ardchomhairle and will be having its Ard-Fheis? Mr Murphy: That is a matter for the ardchomhairle. Some of your questions on understandings would be better posed to the British Government. For at least two or three years — certainly since 2004 — the process by which Sinn Féin would take a decision on policing matters has been clear: the ardchomhairle would agree to a suggestion from the party president and put a proposal to an Ard-Fheis. I do not know why confusion should arise now. People either read the St Andrews Agreement in Scotland or they did not. It reflects what we have been saying over the years: the ardchomhairle would convene an Ard-Fheis. Mr McNarry: I do not know what was said to lead the Government to insert in the St Andrews Agreement that the ardchomhairle would be responding by 10 November. Mr Murphy: Perhaps you should ask them. Mr McNarry: Sinn Féin might have said to the Government: “Hang on, this is not right”, and tabled an amendment to say that the process is different. The Chairman (Mr Wells): David, I would like to correct you. Mr Murphy: Mr McNarry would be better putting his questions to the Government, as I do not think that anyone who has been dealing with Sinn Féin during this process has been unclear about how our party would take a decision on this matter. The Chairman (Mr Wells): David, the wording is: “Ard Comhairle and other appropriate party bodies”. It is important when you are quoting that phrase that you quote it in its entirety. Mr McNarry: That could be interpreted. My party is not mentioned. Who do we consult? Do we consult through the DUP Assembly group or do we consult through the Sinn Féin ardchomhairle? Perhaps “other appropriate party bodies” could refer to my party, the SDLP and the Alliance Party, because we are “other appropriate party bodies”, and very significant ones. Mr Murphy: That is what I presume that means. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Ms Ruane has been waiting for quite a while to get in. Mr McNarry: Are we at least agreed on that? Mr Murphy: We agree that we have the same interpretation. You should perhaps ask the authors of the document. On coming out of St Andrews I heard all the parties — particularly the DUP — stress that this was the Governments’ document, and not theirs. Therefore, if there are questions of interpretation, either we speculate about the meaning or the British and the Irish Governments tell us their understanding, because they drafted it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Ms Ruane. Ms Ruane: You have my permission to use my first name. I know that you use it in other situations. Chairperson, Edwin raised a question, which I presume was meant seriously, or at least I shall take it seriously. Sinn Féin takes very seriously its consultation with its members all over this island, and we are going to great lengths to make sure that every single party member is part of that. We will not pre-empt the discussions. As John said, 10 November is the date to which we are operating. You need to respect our processes, as we respect your consultation with your community. Mr P Robinson: Let me make it clear. The DUP is going through a consultation process, and I suspect that all of the parties, if they have any sense, are doing the same. I recognise that some parties will take longer to do that than will others. That is why I am not fixated about any timetable that the Secretary of State might set. I want to ensure that whatever timetable is there will get the right decisions, with the right degree of consultation and understanding within the parties as to where we are going. I am not fixated about the timetable, and if timetables need to shift to take account of the realities of the situation, then so be it. I say again that this document is the product of the two Governments: it is not in the ownership of the DUP or any other political party. All political parties will have had their input to it. I certainly had never read it before I was handed it at the plenary session at St Andrews. I knew what some parts of it would contain, because we had been involved in negotiations on those. However, there were other elements that I had never seen before, and therefore the DUP is in no way bound by them. We are responding to the Governments’ document. That is why we have the difficulty: because the Governments’ understanding of various parties’ positions was either imperfect, or imperfectly translated into the agreement. In the last three quarters of an hour, we have seen the issues that led to the DUP’s saying, “Hold on a second. Let us not end up with what you did with the Belfast Agreement and its constructive ambiguity. Let everyone be absolutely certain where they stand on the issues. We will have no fuzziness about the matter: everyone needs to know exactly what is expected of them and what they intend to do.” It is in the interests of the process as a whole that everyone knows where they are going with it, and it is clear, and has become more clear today, that the authority will not be vested in Sinn Féin’s ardchomhairle to take the decision to give support to the police, as is required by the terms of the St Andrews Agreement. If that is the case, then clearly, before we can move to the next stage, some Sinn Féin body — I believe it is the Ard-Fheis — will have to give that authority. That is why the process is currently logjammed. I do not blame any of the parties around this table, because it is not their document, but to move forward we must ensure that one element, or one party, does not move ahead of the others. We must ensure that everyone is in a position to move forward, and if that means waiting for the Ard-Fheis to meet and take the decision, so be it. However, it is not beyond the organisational capability of Sinn Féin to call an Ard-Fheis. It is not that far down the road, from Kerry to wherever, to gather people together. Dr Farren: You have been there. Mr P Robinson: I have been to many parts of the Republic of Ireland, and I have been made very welcome wherever I go. [Laughter.] Mr Kennedy: You might want to think about that. Mr McNarry: Mr Wells was not very welcome in Dundalk. Mr P Robinson: I am confident that Sinn Féin could call a meeting of the Ard-Fheis even before 10 November, if it had the desire to do so. However, let us be clear that it is necessary to know with certainty everyone’s position in the process. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Danny, a last comment and then we need to draw this together. Mr Kennedy: It appears that parties that were directly involved in negotiations at St Andrews, either with Government or with each other, did not nail down issues, and, as a result, the agreement seems to be unravelling before our very eyes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have had a reasonable discussion. All that paragraph 8 of annex A asks us to do is to commit ourselves to agreeing that the Pledge of Office should reflect: “the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law.” The NIO, or Her Majesty’s Government, will note our discussions. Mr Poots: What is the outcome? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The outcome is that we have not reached agreement. That is quite clear. Mr McNarry: We are waiting to hear what the Kerry branch of the DUP has to say on this consultation. [Laughter.] Mr Poots: Chairman, I am not sure that we have not reached agreement. No objections have been raised to paragraphs 5 and 6 under “Policing and the rule of law”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am waiting for someone to propose something on which we might vote. Mr Murphy: Did Mr Poots say that we object to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the agreement? Are we all at the same meeting, Chairman? I asked whether we were entering into a discussion on paragraphs 5 and 6 of the agreement, contrary to the agreed work programme to discuss annex A issues, and you said that the discussion would take in a broad view of the entire agreement. We have neither objected to nor accepted any paragraphs in the main section of the St Andrews Agreement. Mr Poots: That is what I just said: I did not hear anybody object to paragraphs 5 or 6. Can we assume that there is consensus that paragraphs 5 and 6 be used as a template? Ms Ruane: Edwin, you obviously did not hear the answer to your question. Mr Murphy: If you put a proposal, we will tell you whether there is consensus. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Have you a proposal, Mr Poots? Mr Poots: I propose that paragraphs 5 and 6 be used as a template. The Chairman (Mr Wells): For the Pledge of Office? Mr Poots: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any comments on that proposal? Mr Murphy: There is no consensus on that proposal. We are content to discuss the issue, but we will not enter into any formula in advance of a proper conclusion to these discussions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do members wish to make any other comments? Mr Ford: Is Conor saying that Sinn Féin is not even prepared to consider paragraphs 5 and 6 of the agreement to be an appropriate starting point for such discussions? Mr Murphy: I am saying that, around this table, we have not reached an appropriate starting point. Until we arrive at one, I will not box my party in by accepting a particular formula. We have not even reached in Committee the point at which we can accept that such a commitment should form part of the Pledge of Office. A general proposal was made in August that we consider the matter further. We have moved from that to trying to find a text for a Pledge of Office before we have even managed to consider how that commitment would be expressed. Mr Ford: Some of us were trying to find some general principles for the Pledge of Office as opposed to drawing up the text of the Pledge of Office. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We do not have consensus on Mr Poots’s proposal. Do we want to vote on it in order to collect parties’ views on it? The DUP is obviously happy with its proposal. Do the Ulster Unionists support the proposal? Mr Kennedy: We would support it. Mr Ford: I am happy enough with it, if that is the consensus. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does the SDLP support the proposal? Dr Farren: We do not necessarily need to refer to the specific paragraphs. Our proposal would be that a Pledge of Office should contain a commitment to uphold the rule of law. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That proposal is along the same lines as Mr Poots’s but uses slightly different wording. Dr Farren: That is what I am saying on behalf of the SDLP. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We shall vote on Edwin’s proposal and then take a vote on the SDLP’s proposal. Mr Poots: All that I am saying is that paragraphs 5 and 6 of the agreement should be used as a starting point or template for the Pledge of Office. Mr Kennedy: Chairman, is it not a difficulty that the St Andrews Agreement is all duck or no dinner? Parties cannot cherry-pick it. The UUP has no objection at all. We would support paragraphs 5 and 6 being used as a template — The Chairman (Mr Wells): Danny, can we just go through the mechanics and gather the votes? Mr Kennedy: The difficulty is that if we begin to go down the line of taking further proposals, I am more attracted to Seán Farren’s proposal, which is more specific on the general principles. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I accept that, but once a proposal is made I am bound to collect views on it. If Seán’s is a separate proposal, we can discuss that after. Mr P Robinson: Can some of us agree that there should be a Pledge of Office that commits Ministers to support the police, the courts and the rule of law? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does that differ greatly from your proposal, Seán? Dr Farren: I would prefer the word “policing” rather than the term “the police”. Who are “the police”? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we wait a moment? Although I know what the view is, I must officially take the view of Sinn Féin on Edwin Poots’s initial proposal. 12.00 noon Mr Murphy: We agreed in August that there should be further discussion about how such a commitment would be expressed. We are now at the stage where, before we have even agreed Seán’s proposition that such a commitment should be a matter for the Pledge of Office, we are starting to narrow down the discussion on what the basis of such a Pledge of Office should be. It is putting the cart before the horse. The Chairman (Mr Wells): So you are against the proposal? Mr Murphy: Well — The Chairman (Mr Wells): I take it, Seán, that you are against this proposal but wish to make another proposal. Dr Farren: I wish to make a separate proposal. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have collected the votes. The Clerk will reiterate the parties’ positions. The Committee Clerk: The DUP, the UUP and the Alliance Party said yes. Sinn Féin and the SDLP said no. Dr Farren: The SDLP is abstaining; we are not saying no. Mr Kennedy: Relaxed. Mr P Robinson: Is Sinn Féin saying no or abstaining? Mr Murphy: Sinn Féin is saying no to paragraphs 5 and 6 as the basis of something, when we have not even agreed how a commitment should be carried forward and we are being asked to agree the basis for that particular proposition. Mr Kennedy: Whither St Andrews now? Mr P Robinson: That would be a reason to abstain and not to — The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sinn Féin is saying no, and it has been logged as such. There is not a huge degree of difference between Seán’s proposal and Peter’s; however, we will take them separately. Mr P Robinson: My proposal is consistent with Edwin’s. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will deal only with Seán’s proposal. The proposal is that the Pledge of Office should contain a commitment to uphold the rule of law. Mr McNarry: Did you not mention policing? Dr Farren: No, I was commenting on what Peter said. My proposal is that the Pledge of Office should contain a commitment to uphold the rule of law. That is a statement of principle, not the precise wording that may find its way into the Pledge of Office to reflect that commitment. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is pretty clear what Seán is getting at. Can we collect votes on that proposal? What is the DUP’s position? Mr P Robinson: The proposal is not sufficient. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that a no or an abstention? Mr P Robinson: I am not against a pledge to uphold the rule of law in the Pledge of Office, but we also want clearly identified support for the police and the courts to be included, as does the St Andrews Agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that an abstention or a no? Mr P Robinson: It is not enough, is what it is. The Secretary of State is eager to find out the Committee’s comments. That is the Democratic Unionist Party’s comment. Mr Ford: Is that a no dressed up as a yes or a yes dressed up as a no, Peter? Mr P Robinson: It is part of the issue, so it is partly a yes, but it is not sufficient. Mr Poots: The discussion was on policing and the rule of law, so Seán has got one of those. Dr Farren: The phrase “rule of law” is a fairly general concept that embraces policing, the courts and the rule of law. How far do we go in spelling out each concept in the Pledge of Office? I do not see the distinctions between policing and the courts, and the rule of law. Mr Kennedy: We share the concerns of others that the proposal is not comprehensive enough. While we can support that element of it, we are not completely satisfied that it would deal comprehensively with the issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is very similar to the DUP’s comment. Dr Farren: We may get there eventually. Mr Ford: Seán has acknowledged that the wording of his proposal will not be the final wording of the Pledge of Office. However, I am quite happy to endorse it as a statement of principle. Mr McNarry: He has not. Mr Kennedy: As long as HM Government do not think that it is the final wording. Mr Ford: Neither Seán nor the only member who supports his proposal thinks that the proposal will be the final wording. As neither he nor I think that it is a full statement, but merely a statement of general principle, presumably the Government will get the message. Mr McNarry: Could you say “including policing”? Dr Farren: Then you would have to say “including, including, including”, and so on. Mr P Robinson: The PSNI and the RUC GC — Dr Farren: The harbour police and the airport police. The Chairman (Mr Wells): After this proposal, Mr McNarry, you can put forward your own proposal and beef it up accordingly. Mr P Robinson: — and the B Specials. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): The SDLP will, of course, say yes to Seán’s proposal. What about Sinn Féin? Mr Murphy: Pending the conclusion of the discussion, we abstain on this proposition. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We do not have consensus. Let us read the votes. The Committee Clerk: The SDLP said yes; Sinn Féin abstained; the Alliance Party endorsed it as a statement of principle; the DUP felt that it was not sufficient; and the UUP believed that it was not comprehensive enough. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Having reached that stage, the only way forward is for another party to make a proposal. Otherwise, we must accept that the NIO will take note of the Hansard report of our discussion and come to its own conclusions. If there are no other proposals, we will move on to discuss paragraph 9 of annex A, which deals with the appointment of Ministers in the Executive. We must consider the content of the paragraph and decide whether the Northern Ireland Act 1998 needs to be amended to reflect our views. Who wishes to lead the discussion on paragraph 9? Mr Ford: I will, if no one else wants to. Although the Alliance Party does not believe that the joint election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister actually guaranteed any joint action by the two Ministers when in office, we have grave concerns about any proposal to remove such elements of joint operation as applied in 1998 and simply hand nominations over to party nominating officers. Mr Murphy: From the discussions at St Andrews, I understand that a number of parties support this proposition. I have a number of questions. Sinn Féin’s position is that the election process for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should remain as it was under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. Several questions arise from the proposition in paragraph 9 of annex A. Under the previous arrangements, any Member could have been nominated as First Minister, with the success of the nomination depending on whether the Member secured sufficient support within the Assembly. It was not specified from which party or designation the Member had to come, merely that they must have the support of the majority of both designations and a majority of the Assembly as a whole. Under this proposal, it appears that the only Member who can ever secure the nomination for First Minister would be from the largest party in the largest designation. That poses some questions. There may well a degree of settling down, particularly within the unionist designation, but at one stage in the previous Assembly there were seven different unionist parties, some of which were clearly larger than others. Theoretically, if those numbers had been spread fairly evenly throughout the unionist designation, under this proposal a party within the second designation that was larger than any within the unionist designation would not have been entitled to nominate someone for the post of First Minister. The nomination could only come from the largest designation, regardless of the particular party make-up in that designation. This proposition does not take account of party size at all; it takes account only of designati |