Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-47)
MR JONATHAN
PHILLIPS, MR
NICK PERRY
AND MR
ANTHONY HARBINSON
16 JULY 2008
Q40 Chairman: Yes. One of the other
problems here is that the print is so small; I have got to take
my spectacles off to read it!
Mr Phillips: Yes, I agree. The
current view amongst those involved in that discussion between
PSNI, the Policing Board and the Department, is that it really
would be pretty inappropriate for the Secretary of State or the
current actors to launch a vision which got in the way of the
Executive formulating its own view, we hope in the not too distant
future. That is, I think, my more general point. I entirely take
the force of your comment about easy and clear communication,
but in terms of high level messages, I am not sure that now is
the right time to be sending a comprehensive message.
Q41 Chairman: But surely it is always
the right time to be as intelligible as possible to as many people
as possible? I mean, the more I look at this document, which is
so beautifully printed, the more difficult I find it. Maybe my
colleagues disagree, but I just think that this is an exercise
in technicolour obfuscation rather than clarity of description.
Mr Phillips: Do you find that
in relation to p.130?
Q42 Chairman: Yes, because of the
size of the type, you see. It is very difficult to read. I do
not think my eyes are all that bad, but I do find that difficult.
Mr Phillips: I can assure you
that we do produce this in different formats and we can certainly
make available to the Committee a much more easily approachable
version of this, which will of course refer in substance to these
points. That is easily done. If I might just revert to the devolution
of justice and policing timetable, the point I wanted to get across,
as someone who has an important role in delivering this at the
practical level, is that once there is a political agreement that
this is going to happen in a particular timescale everyone involved
needs to recognise that there is a necessary time interval, partly
for legislation, and that it will be defined principally for legislation,
both in the House of Commons and in the Assembly. We estimate
that it is a minimum of three months to accommodate the necessary
legislative measures, assuming that the Assembly is willing to
itself adopt an accelerated procedure to get its bit of the jigsaw
done.
Q43 Chairman: This is actually very,
very interesting and very relevant to the Committee's work. So
what you are saying is that if, on 1 October, Mr Robinson and
McGuinness were able to say, "We have cracked it. We have
agreed," we are then talking of a minimum of three months
before it could come into effect?
Mr Phillips: Exactly.
Q44 Chairman: Nobody has put that
to the Committee as precisely as that and we are very grateful
for that, because the Secretary of State has made it quite plain
that he very much wants to see this. We understand that. Sir Hugh
Orde has made it quite plain that he can deliver when asked to
deliver, but nobody has put it with that clarity and it is rather
nice to be able to congratulate you on that, having just made
a few comments about this. It is very helpful to us to have that.
So we are talking of a minimum of three months, and that is three
months if the Assembly agrees to an accelerated timetable?
Mr Phillips: Yes.
Q45 Chairman: If it did not agree
to an accelerated timetable, what are we looking at, more like
six months?
Mr Phillips: Yes. It is difficult
to put a precise figure on that, but I should have thought so.
Q46 Chairman: That again is very,
very helpful. Are there any other points on that which colleagues
wish to raise with Mr Phillips? We are moving towards the end
of our session because I notice that the Government Minister who
is due to wind up this debate, which will be followed by a division,
is now on her feet. Does anybody else have any points on this
to ask? Are there any other things, Mr Phillips, which you would
like to draw to our attention? As you said, this is the first
one. I hope we will see you again, although not too often because
we both share your desires and ambitions, but are there any other
points this afternoon which you would like to draw to our attention?
Mr Phillips: No, I do not think
so. I was particularly keen to make sure you understood the logistical
aspect of the devolution programme, which is very important. Otherwise,
on that point, I think I would simply say that we do feel well
prepared for that change, if and when it is agreed. We have been
working very hard on it.
Q47 Chairman: At the risk of making
him blush, we have always been very impressed by the thorough
professionalism of Nick Perry and his colleagues and we felt that
those who are serving the Province as permanent officials do a
very good job and I would like, through you, to thank them, and
to thank you as well, and wish you success as the year unfolds.
Let us hope that we can have at least one more session with you,
but thank you very, very much indeed this afternoon, and for fielding
all the questions, although you have obviously had two henchmen
upon whom you could depend at any moment!
Mr Phillips: Thank you very much,
Chairman. I am grateful for your remarks and I know my colleagues
more generally will be also.
Chairman: Thank you, and again I apologise
for the small attendance, but those of us who have been here have
enjoyed the pleasure of your company and appreciated the evidence
you have given. Thank you very much indeed.
| 
