Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs Minutes of Evidence


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.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 16 July 2008