Minutes of Proceedings - 16 October 1998

Introduction

1.The Chairman welcomed Ms Lewsley to her first meeting. He also welcomed Mr Kennedy and Ms Whitten from the Northern Ireland Centre m Europe and invited them to make a presentation.

Northern Ireland Centre in Europe (NICE

2.Mr Kennedy described the background to the work of NICE. Formed in 1992, it was a cross-sectoral organisation with cross-party support. Members of the Committee of the Regions in Brussels served on its Board. Mr Kennedy described the organisation of the European Union's main bodies: the Commission; the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. He acknowledged the growing importance of the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee.

Mr Kennedy described the competing approaches to government which had shaped the modem EU. The partnership model espoused by jean Monnet and the model focused on the authority of Member States, the Gaullist model. Based on the historical development of the Union, from post-war uncertainty the modern fully integrated economies, he suggested that the modern EU had successfully incorporated elements of both philosophical approaches and produced a model for governance rather than government. EU legislative proposals tended to reflect the outcome of negotiation and agreement. Proposals reflected considerable input by committees and experts and were not often driven by individual MEPs.

4.Mr Kennedy reflected on the Scottish experience which derived from a strong emphasis on accessing and controlling information. He noted the "Xbtfell Papers' and the importance which the Scots had attached to establishing a permanent presence in Brussels. He noted the insight in the Papers to Westminster fears about regional diversity but also the importance which 0 parties had given to respecting confidentiality within a Member State. However devolution in the UK had a wider significance for the EU, as now no Member State had a centralised approach to government. For Northern Ireland this would become more important as other regions raised their profile in Brussels. 1he socio-economic issues which had attracted funds to Northern Ireland in the past were unlikely to mark it out for continuing special treatment.

5.Mr Kennedy suggested that this backdrop provided the context within which to consider NIs position within Europe and, in particular, in Brussels. Northern Ireland had three effective MEPs who had worked together successfully. The NI Centre in Europe had established useful contacts in Brussels and provided a service to employers and trade unions as well as MEPs. It was a model which Scotland and Wales were adopting. Mr Kennedy recommended close co-operation with the UK Permanent Representation in Brussels but also the maintenance of an independent office for Northern Ireland. He noted the importance of multi-lateral approaches, in line with the terms of the Belfast Agreement, for co-operation with the Republic of Ireland but also other regions in the United Kingdom.

6. Mr Kennedy described the relationship between Westminster and Northern Ireland. He pointed to five issues of importance:-

• the early and co-ordinated provision of information;

• the establishing of dear systems of operation;

• the ability to focus on key issues; the accessibility of the full range of documents;

• the availability of informal channels. He explained the importance of 'non-papers' to the process of developing proposals.

Discussion

7.The Chairman thanked Mr Kennedy for his presentation and invited discussion on what had been said. In response to questions Mr Kennedy explained:

• NICE funding was drawn equally from local councils, NICS departments and specific contracts;

• NICE did not develop policy positions, it served others who wanted to develop policy, nor was it a lobby group. It sought to increase the capacity of those in NI who wanted a presence in Brussels;

• political situation here stabilised,

• concern over audit requirements reflected some element of duplication with London and Belfast adding requirements to the European specification for financial monitoring;

• the Danish model of representation in Brussels, where its office was staffed by parliamentary staff;

• that Westminster would have to consider whether it would need to modify the present Committee arrangements, particularly to deal with regional diversity;

• NICE could not provide a filter for EU documents on its present staffing. He confirmed the importance of NI having an effective system for inputting its views on key issues. Mr Kennedy pointed to the potential for conflict within the UK if separate regional views were not being presented effectively in Brussels. This was a matter the Assembly would have to address;

• that the NICE would maintain its independence though, through funding from NI Departments, it would value the opportunity of working for the Assembly.

Mr Kennedy and Ms Whitten left the meeting.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting and Matters Arising

8.On the proposal of W McClarty, seconded by Mr Wilson, the minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the previous meeting.

9.The Chairman reported on contact with the Procedure Committee. It was unlikely that the Committee would receive any further papers before it was due to report in early November. He reported on a brief meeting with the Executive's support staff which had identified some further possible leads.

Draft Paper

10.The Clairman explained that the paper was designed to reflect some of the elements of earlier discussions and followed the Westminster practice of providing a draft on which the Committee could focus its discussion. Members were invited to suggest additions, deletions or amendments to the text. There was a short adjournment to allow Members to consider the draft.

After the adjournment

11.Paragraphs 1-10 of the text were accepted as factual. Some minor adjustments to numbering were suggested. Mr Paisley suggested that paragraph 10 needed to reflect some of what the Committee had heard earlier on European connections. There remained a procedural issue about the relationship between the Assembly and Brussels, through Westminster. The Chairman suggested that this should be resolved after a closer look at how Westminster dealt with Europe. Ms Morrice suggested that the role of MEPs also needed to be considered.

The Chairman suggested that paragraph 11, referring to the need for review, might he re-located to later in the text.

13.There was lengthy discussion about paragraphs 12 and 13. Members noted the significant difference to the legislative basis for the Assembly from the arrangements pre- 1972 and the in built mechanisms to avoid dissension. It was agreed that the Report should look forward and focus on recommendations for future practice without looking back at previous events. The discussion concluded with agreement that paragraph 12 should be re-drafted into a recommendation and paragraph 13 should be deleted.

14. Mr Ervine suggested that paragraph 18 should be amended on the same basis.

15.Mr McCartney asked that paragraph 15 make dear that the bodies involved in the joint Ministerial Council were UK regional bodies.

At this point Members sought an adjournment.

16.The Committee agreed that the Chairman should conduct a series of bi-lateral discussions with the Parties to take forward the drafting.

Date of Next Meeting

17. Members agreed to re-convene on Friday 23 October at 10.20 am in the Long Gallery.

The meeting adjourned at 1.20 pm.