Minutes of Proceedings - 02 October 1998

Introduction

1. The Chairman welcomed Mr O'Neill to the meeting and outlined the Agenda. He explained that anticipated responses from DFP and the Cabinet Office had not been forthcoming. Mr McCrea asked whether there were reasons for the lack of a presentation from the Cabinet Office. Mr McCartney suggested that there might be references to these delays in the Interim Report. The Chairman explained that the Cabinet Office had originally agreed only to an 'informal briefing' and that DFP were awaiting Ministerial clearance for its Memorandum to the Committee. It was agreed that no reference to these delays should be included in the Interim Report.

Draft Interim Report

2. The Chairman asked for comments on the draft Interim Report. Mr McCartney wanted a more direct report in simpler language. He suggested the addition of an introductory paragraph setting the context of the Committee's terms of reference and stating the difficulty of describing the Assembly's possible relationship with Westminster before the Assembly had agreed its own Standing Orders.

3. Mr Close drew attention to the reference to devolution in Scotland and Wales. He suggested that the short lead-in to devolution in Northern Ireland was an important factor in the Committee's deliberations. Members then agreed that the Report would benefit from a short factual annex describing the key aspects of current Westminster procedures. It was agreed that such information would be helpful to other Members of the Assembly in understanding the issues. The Committee discussed its task and concluded that it aimed to advise Westminster on changes in practice there which could be helpful to how the Assembly would conduct its own business. Ms Morrice expressed concern that the Interim Report should not contain too much jargon.

4. Mr O'Neill raised whether the Committee ought to be looking at how Orders-in-Council would be processed. Ms Nelis expressed concern that the Committee should not be focused on the 'good governance of the United Kingdom' as described in the draft Report. Others contended that this was precisely the task before the Committee. The wording of this section was discussed and a revised wording proposed by the Secretariat. It was agreed that a draft Annex would be circulated to Members during the afternoon. In the absence of particular concern, the Chairman was authorised to approve other revisions to the draft and to arrange for the publication of the Interim Report.

Sir Kenneth Bloomfield

5. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield joined the meeting. He outlined the basis of his agreement to offer advice to the Committee. He had been a Senior Official in the Cabinet Secretariat of the last government at Stormont and had been de facto Cabinet Secretary to the Executive during 1974. Sir Kenneth referred to the distinction between considering relationships between Parliaments and Governments. During devolution under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, the Unionist Party was the Government of Northern Ireland. Whilst authority resided at Westminster, it only became involved in Northern Ireland's internal matters when invited to do so by the administration at Stormont. Sir Kenneth noted that this was different from 1974 arrangements when the office of Secretary of State shared authority with th Executive for Northern Ireland's affairs. Such arrangements were perhaps more analogous with the proposed arrangements post-devolution. Sir Kenneth reflected on the position of Adam Ingram as Minister for Victims and queried how this responsibility might transfer to the Assembly. Sir Kenneth also noted the new importance of Europe since his days in the Government administration.

6. The Chairman on behalf of the Committee thanked Sir Kenneth for his overview. Mr McCartney asked Sir Kenneth whether the position of the Dublin Government as described in the Agreement added a fourth dimension (added to Belfast, London and Brussels) to the consideration of relationships between the various sources of authority.

7. Sir Kenneth reflected on the experience post-Sunningdale. Two forms of control were exercised:

• the Executive exercised power but also performed an advisory role for the Secretary of State; and
• a Joint Official Liaison Committee provided for ease of information exchange between senior officials in London and Belfast.

1. Sir Kenneth also noted the importance of Europe and suggested that the Assembly would need to consider how it would be represented on a permanent basis in Brussels. He suggested taking account of the experience of the German Lander whose representation in Brussels did not compromise the ability of the federal Government to represent a single coherent German view. Sir Kenneth described the political relationships within the United Kingdom as examples of 'variable geometry'. He understood that the regional interests of the UK would not always be shared, for example, Northern Ireland tended towards the producers' interests in agricultural matters, whereas other regions tended to support the consumers' analysis. Nevertheless Sir Kenneth recognised the opportunity which presented itself in that Brussels was, presently, sympathetic to the need for re-building Northern Ireland. This was an opportunity on which NI had to capitalise.

Block Grant Arrangements

2. Mr Close asked about block grant arrangements. Sir Kenneth expressed his support for maintaining the Barnett Formula, though he expected that English MPs would become increasingly animated about the allocation of public moneys to the regions. On accountability after devolution, Sir Kenneth reported that NIO obligations, toward expenditure on transferred matters, tended to require only that NIO satisfied itself with regard to regularity of the appropriation. Accountability for expenditure within NI tended to rest with the devolved institution. He suggested that an arrangement whereby Accounting Officers in NI Departments, usually Permanent Secretaries, and the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland, reported to the Assembly directly would be most effective. He suggested that relationships between Departments in Whitehall and Northern Ireland needed to reflect strong formal and informal contacts. Similarly the relationship with Brussels needed to be carefully nurtured.

Overlapping Jurisdiction

3. Mr Wilson asked about the arrangements which allowed Westminster to leave the Government of NI to rule unfettered by Westminster. Sir Kenneth explained the historical position and suggested that the NI Constitution Act 1973 provided a more flexible basis for the application of powers wherein the Secretary of State could approve an extension of the powers of the devolved administration. This helped to overcome some difficulties in areas where the distinction between Belfast and London authority was less clear.

4. Ms Morrice asked whether it might be useful to overcome difficulties within a European context by referring matters to the North-South implementation bodies and seeking an all-island basis for negotiating with Brussels. Sir Kenneth cautioned against forgetting the key funding relationship with London. Whilst some matters could benefit from closer co-operation with Dublin, it was also clear that London would remain the key financial link for NI. Sir Kenneth suggested that the current levels of funding were the most beneficial that could be anticipated, with funding from IFI and EU likely to decline in the near future. It was also important that Westminster should not be denied thorough scrutiny of the NI Block. However Sir Kenneth suggested that the Assembly would enjoy, at most, a 5 or 6 year 'window' to enable it to mount a case for sustaining the current levels of funding.

5. Sir Kenneth also recalled that under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, the Government of Northern Ireland was not subordinate to Westminster on transferred matters.

6. On the division of responsibilities between Departments, Sir Kenneth suggested that a number of larger Departments could be divisible but suggested that arrangements for co-operation with counterparts in London ought to be considered. Sir Kenneth also suggested that the impression of power-wielding Civil Servants during the period of Direct Rule was mistaken and based on confusion arising from senior officials undertaking speaking engagements on behalf of their Ministers.

7. The Chairman, on behalf of the Committee thanked Sir Kenneth for his contribution. Sir Kenneth left the meeting.

Minutes of the Previous meeting and matters arising

8. The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed as a true record. There were no matters arising.

Date of the Next Meeting

9. It was agreed that, subject to agreement for an extension by the Assembly, the Committee would meet again at 10.30am on Thursday 8 October. The Chairman suggested that the meeting should consider how to plan the preparation of a Report of the Committee to meet the deadline of 6 November.