Emma Pengelly
South Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“This week, I will travel to France to pay my respects to all those who fought and the many who fell at the Battle of the Somme as we mark its 110th anniversary. <BR /> <BR />From across Northern Ireland, generations have served their country.”
“One of the men who fought was James Sandford, my great-grandfather. He fought, he survived, he went on to fight again, and he was seriously injured in another battle. I am deeply proud of him, and I am proud of all those who stepped forward with such honour in the face of the horror of that war.”
“When I stand there this week, looking at the gravestones of so many who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedom, I will also remember — we must always remember — the responsibility that we carry forward. Remembrance is not only about honouring the past; it is about shaping the future.”
“Last night, people in north Belfast witnessed horrific scenes that have absolutely sickened and appalled people across Northern Ireland. It was a shocking and barbaric act of violence that has left a victim fighting the consequences of a truly savage attack.”
“Every person has the right to walk their streets, live in their community and feel safe in their own neighbourhood. This type of brutality has no place in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />This morning, I spoke with the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have also been in contact with the Prime Minister, because the PSNI has confirmed that the 30-year-old male who has been arrested is believed to be of Somalian heritage.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,234 lines we hold for Emma Pengelly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 43 of 45.
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Stewart Dickson, who has moved the amendment, has previously robustly rejected proposals on what he described as "major changes to the law" for the very reason that trying to do so by way of amendment was:”
“I speak on behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party on what is an emotive and poignant issue for many. It is an issue that touches on individuals, couples and families in a deeply personal way. I respectfully say to the House that this is not an issue for politicking or insults or to be used to inflame. It is especially not an opportunity to cause further hurt or distress. Our approach to the issue is based on compassion. We are compassionate about the tragic situation that some parents unexpectedly and without wanting to find themselves having to deal with. Any suggested change of law on this issue, which reaches fundamentally to core ideological views and values and touches directly on issues of life and death, must be carefully and fully considered.”
“Reform of the structures of government here is overdue. It has featured as a Programme for Government commitment since 2011. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee carried out a review in 2012 and identified areas of commonality broadly reflective of our current proposals. Together with the reduction in the number of MLAs, which we are also legislating for, this shows our commitment to a leaner and more efficient structure of government here. This is a good day for government in Northern Ireland. This a good day for a better way of doing business, and it is a good day for delivery.”
“We have faced this in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. We are convinced that, in order to find a new way of working and to bring about better outcomes and changes, this work must happen. It is worth the difficulties that we face but it requires a change of culture for officials, for the way that Departments do business and also, perhaps, in the way that Ministers speak to, and work with, one another in bringing forward collaborative policies and initiatives with, perhaps, collaborative working on funding. <BR /> <BR />I thank Members again for their contributions to the Final Stage debate on the Departments Bill and for the issues they have raised. It is only a short Bill, but it is one that will have significant implications for how our institutions do business in the future.”
“Certainly, the organisations involved in those, should they be arm's-length bodies or others, have communicated their concerns and issues and have already brought about some changes in relation to them, up to the point of the transfer of functions order. <BR /> <BR />In relation to the specific comments by Alex Attwood, I can confirm to the Member that this work must happen. I know that from my experience of working with a couple of key policy areas, as special adviser and, now, as junior Minister. Those two examples are the Delivering Social Change agenda and the social investment fund. Both of those big policy areas were cross-departmental. They have a number of different policy objectives, touching on a number of different Departments and agencies, and they were incredibly difficult to bring about because of that.”
“We also want a focus on delivering excellent public services for all. Today, this piece of legislation and the reforms that we are bringing in are a critical and important step in making that happen. <BR /> <BR />On his specific points about the transfer of functions order, as I said, I am not going to get into the detail of that. I understand that it was sent to the Committee on 19 January, not 27 January, for consideration, and I highlight to him that, although there is considerable detail in that order, it has been clear that there are only a small number of issues on which people have a range of different views. I suspect that the Committee will focus on that small range of issues in due course.”
“<BR /> <BR />A range of other matters was raised by my colleague Mr Paul Frew, Mr Chris Lyttle and Mr Alex Attwood. Turning first to Mr Frew's comments; I absolutely agree. This is a significant step but it will only work with dedication and hard work. We need to break down the silos within Departments, and we need to push forward for a better way of working. <BR /> <BR />Mr Lyttle echoed many of the sentiments of the comments from Mr Frew and Mr Attwood. We absolutely agree that these measures are welcome and necessary but they will not resolve everything. We have been very clear: we want to see better processes; we want to see better collaboration and cross-departmental, cross-policy working; and we want to see an increased focus on outcomes, ensuring that all we do focuses on improving people's lives.”
“I am grateful for the contributions that we heard today and I will deal with those before making my final remarks about the Bill. I will attempt to clarify any queries that have been raised, but I should highlight that I do not intend to get into the substance of the transfer of functions order issues, as those matters have the option to be aired in the Chamber in due course. <BR /> <BR />Regarding Mr Alex Maskey's comments on behalf of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, I welcome the Committee's support. I also welcome the remarks by Mr Andy Allen about his support for further streamlining. I am very pleased to be able to stand here today to confirm the delivery of these measures that will help to support better streamlining of our Departments.”
“Those were purely technical adjustments that were needed to maintain consistency with the Public Services Ombudsman Bill, which has now reached its concluding stages in the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />I take this opportunity to thank all those who have contributed, through their support and through constructive debate, in getting the Bill to this point. It will help to put into effect the decisions taken by the Executive on restructuring. The Bill will create the framework for the most extensive reorganisation of the departmental system since 1999. Its passage at this time will help to ensure a leaner, more streamlined and efficient administration from the outset of the new mandate. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.”
“The Bill has to complete its passage in sufficient time for statutory processes, including the debate and affirmative motion relating to the separate transfer of functions order, so it was necessary for us to seek accelerated passage. The Assembly agreed and voted with cross-community support to allow the procedure. <BR /> <BR />The accelerated passage debate was followed by the Bill's Second Stage on the same day. That suggested that there was broad support for the principles of the Bill. No amendments were tabled at the Bill's Consideration Stage on 19 January 2016, and the Bill's clauses and schedules were voted unopposed to stand part of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Bill's Further Consideration Stage was taken yesterday, when two ministerial amendments were agreed.”
“<BR /> <BR />On 8 December 2015, a motion for the Bill to be progressed by accelerated passage was debated in the Assembly, with junior Minister McCann and I having previously attended and gained the support of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to the request. During the accelerated passage debate, it was recognised that progression of the Bill, as with other Stormont House Agreement matters, became possible only as a result of the consensus that had been reached on 'A Fresh Start' a few weeks previously. We had moved immediately to have the Bill introduced in the Assembly, consistent with the commitment to do so by the end of November 2015. There was only limited Assembly time available before dissolution in March 2016.”
“Clause 3 gives the title of the Act and arrangements for the commencement of clauses 1 and 2 on a day or days to be appointed by the First Minister and deputy First Minister. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 1 and 2 are likely to be commenced very shortly after the election in May 2016. Schedule 1 lists all nine future Departments under the titles that they will carry from 2016. Schedule 2 repeals provisions in the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, as subsequently amended, and in two other Acts that added the names of the Departments to the Departments Order. It has the effect of removing references to the outgoing 12-Department model.”
“However, important provisions of the 1999 Order on the legal status of Northern Ireland Departments generally and on the exercise of their functions were not affected by the Bill. <BR /> <BR />As I said, it is a short Bill that now consists of three clauses and two schedules. Clause 1 renames seven existing Departments and dissolves three Departments — DEL, DCAL and DOE — as required to establish the new structures. There is no reference to the Department of Education and the Department of Justice, which are not affected by the Bill. It applies the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 to the new set of nine Departments. <BR /> <BR />Clause 2 references schedule 2, which contains essential repeals.”
“With institutional reform, it reaffirmed the commitment to reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine in time for the 2016 Assembly election and provided greater clarity on the functions of the nine future Departments. It also committed to having a Departments Bill introduced in the Assembly by the end of November 2015. <BR /> <BR />In fulfilment of that commitment, the Departments Bill was introduced in the Assembly on 30 November 2015. Its purpose is to create a statutory framework for the new model of nine Departments. It sets out the names of the future Departments and makes necessary changes to the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which provides the basis for the current departmental system.”
“<BR /> <BR />In a statement to the Assembly on 2 March 2015, the First Minister announced the decisions that had been reached by the Executive on the new departmental structures in consequence of the Stormont House Agreement. He set out a future model of nine Departments with all the powers, functions and services of the current 12 Departments. The allocation of responsibilities was further refined during the talks process that led to the publication of 'A Fresh Start' on 17 November 2015. <BR /> <BR />'A Fresh Start' offered a way forward on a range of challenging issues and enabled us to look forward to a period of greater cooperation.”
“In 2012, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee produced a report on the reduction in the number of Departments that identified areas of commonality broadly comparable to the departmental restructuring now being put in place. The policy proposals underpinning the Bill were the subject of detailed consideration during the process that led to the Stormont House Agreement in December 2014. That agreement determined on a nine-Department model to be established in time for the 2016 election, with the future allocation of departmental functions to be agreed by the parties. The Executive discussed departmental restructuring on several occasions in early 2015 and decided on the names and responsibilities of the future Departments. Those names are reflected in the current Bill.”
“This is a very short Bill, consisting of only three clauses and two schedules. Yet, it is a Bill that will have significant implications for the way that our institutions do business in the future. In moving the Bill at Second Stage, I spoke about how, at the heart of 'A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan', there is a common commitment to a better way of doing business together. One of the ways that the agreement aims to achieve that is by progressing the reduction in the number of Departments from 12 to nine in time for the 2016 Assembly election. <BR /> <BR />Of course, reform of the structures of government here has been an issue for a long time.”
“The Departments Bill is important legislation, and I am glad to see it progressing through the Assembly today.”
“I thank Members for their contributions and support in relation to the technical amendments. As I said at the outset, the amendments make small technical adjustments to the Bill that do not change its substance or affect policy. They are necessary as a result of the progress of the Public Services Ombudsman Bill and its anticipated repeal of the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. They remove references to the 1996 Order, which will become redundant on the coming into operation of the Public Services Ombudsman Bill. I should say at this point that the Bill does not need to be reflected in the text of the Public Services Ombudsman Bill, as that Bill refers generically to Departments rather than listing them by name in the way that the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 did.”
“It would remove schedule 2, which details the consequential amendments, all of which relate to citations of Departments in the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. These are technical amendments that will improve the Bill by removing provisions that will become redundant as a consequence of the Public Services Ombudsman Bill and its anticipated progress in the course of the next week.”
“It is now expected to complete its Assembly stages next week. It will establish the new Public Services Ombudsman position with effect from 1 April 2016, and, on that date, the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 will be repealed and the office established under that legislation will cease to exist. This means that clause 2(1) of and schedule 2 to the Departments Bill will be superseded. Consequently, they will be redundant and can now be removed from the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 would remove from the Bill clause 2(1), which references the amendments to the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 contained in schedule 2 and consequential on clause 1. Clearly linked to that is amendment No 2.”
“That would have been achieved through the amendments reference in clause 2(1) and listed at schedule 2 to the Departments Bill. However, with the Departments Bill in its concluding stages, it is necessary now to take account of how it interacts with another Bill currently before the Assembly, namely the Public Services Ombudsman Bill, sponsored by the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. <BR /> <BR />In my introductory speech at Second Stage on 8 December, I referred to the possible need for a technical amendment to this Bill at a later stage, pending the progress of the Public Services Ombudsman Bill. That Bill would establish a new combined Public Services Ombudsman in place of the existing and separate offices of Assembly Ombudsman and Commissioner for Complaints.”
“Amendment No 1, together with amendment No 2, makes a technical adjustment to the Bill that does not change its substance or affect the policy behind it. The Bill, as drafted and as it now sits, takes account of the current law, including the legislation that covers the operation of the statutory office of the Assembly Ombudsman, the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. That Order specifies the remit of the ombudsman by referencing the names of individual Northern Ireland Departments. Given the nature of the ombudsman's role, the Order is frequently accessed by the public. Consequently, when the Departments Bill was being drafted, it was considered that it would be helpful to make specific textual amendments to the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to reflect the Departments after restructuring in May 2016.”
“I beg to move amendment No 1: <BR /> <BR />In page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (1).”
“The provision of good governance through a more streamlined Assembly will be the ultimate outcome of the Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Bill. We must move now if we are to grasp the opportunity to have the matter settled before the end of the current Assembly mandate. That requires accelerated passage of the Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Bill. Therefore, I ask the Assembly to approve the motion. Thank you.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is very simple, it has been extensively discussed and there is absolute clarity in the legislation, which gives clarity for people making those choices as outlined by Mr Poots. We honestly believe that this is something that is wanted out on the ground, and we believe that people will simply say to us, "Get on with it. There is no need for further discussion. Get on with it, do it and deliver it". That is exactly what we are doing here today. <BR /> <BR />I thank Members once again for their contributions to the debate on the accelerated passage motion and for the questions and issues that they raised. As with other Stormont House Agreement matters, the conclusion of A Fresh Start has provided a basis for progressing this important legislation.”
“No, I am sorry, I would like to continue. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the words of support from various Members on the need for this to happen in this mandate. <BR /> <BR />Finally, turning to Mr McAllister's comments, I certainly do not agree with him that the case made here today is that there will potentially be political instability in the next mandate. Members have a job to scrutinise the legislation, and we have outlined that it is not ideal to use accelerated passage. However, I do not think it is acceptable for us to simply do nothing between now and the end of the mandate. We are here, we have a job to do, and we can get this matter processed before the end of the mandate.”
“No, I am sorry, I would like to continue. <BR /> <BR />Where Mr Lyttle's comment is concerned, I reiterate that the Bill is very simple. I know that many of these issues will be looked at in the next stage, which is to commence shortly. I am sure he would agree with me that people want to see action, not endless discussion on this. I think the point would have more validity had this not gone through the AERC process already. <BR /> <BR />On Mr Hazzard's comments, I welcome the support and —”
“Therefore, if it was up to the UUP, the matter would still not be moved in the Chamber, and there would not be any agreement to move it in the Chamber. I think it is relatively ironic, therefore, that the comment has been made that it should have been brought to the Chamber sooner. I think that, for many people out there, we have talked about it, the AERC has talked about it, the Chamber has debated it, and I think people want to see us in the Chamber get on with it, work together and bring about these necessary changes.”
“There is no doubt that, to do that, there will need to be a range of measures put in place, but this is one of a range that I believe, and we in the Executive believe, is necessary to bring about better efficiency and effectiveness. <BR /> <BR />Where the Member's point on inclusion is concerned, I assure him that, despite this reduction, we will still be by far the most represented per head of the population across the UK. In fact, even with this reduction, we will have twice the level of representation per head of population than the likes of Scotland. <BR /> <BR />Although Mr Nesbitt asked why this could not have been done earlier and lamented the fact that it was not, let me say that the UUP did not agree it then. It did not even agree it in the Fresh Start Agreement.”
“Where Mr Attwood's comments are concerned, I will say that, absolutely, we agree that this should not be the norm. The reality of it, though, is that we have a choice to make, and that choice is very simple: we either move forward and continue to deliver or we simply do nothing in the remainder of this term. I do not think it is acceptable to people out there for us to simply sit back. <BR /> <BR />The matter that is the subject of the Bill has been scrutinised for many years. As I mentioned, it has been extensively consulted on by and discussed in the AERC. I do not agree with the Member that there is a suggestion that this will be the single thing that will create efficiency and effectiveness in the Chamber.”
“I welcome Gordon Lyons's remarks. He echoed the Deputy Chair's words and reiterated the fact that this is a short, clear and simple Bill. I agree with him that this is something that people have asked for and want. It is something that people expect us to get on with and deliver.”
“<BR /> <BR />The change outlined in the Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Bill is the most significant reform of the Assembly since it was established and complements the proposed reduction in the number of Departments, legislation for which is also currently proceeding through the Assembly. The change will result in an Assembly containing a number of MLAs that is better aligned to the size of the Administration, the range of functions over which it has responsibility and public expectations of an efficient and cost-effective system of government. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the support of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and the remarks of the Deputy Chair. The Member rightly outlines that the Bill is a very simple one. This is not a new issue; it has been extensively discussed and consulted on.”
“I am grateful for Members' contributions to the debate. I first reiterate that, at this late stage in the current mandate and given the need for the Bill to receive Royal Assent before the May 2016 Assembly election, there is no alternative to accelerated passage if the change is to be given effect before the end of the mandate. While the scope for any change to the Bill's provisions is extremely limited, the governing legislation specifies that the number of Members returned can only be reduced or increased by one. We acknowledge that it would have been preferable for the Bill to have been taken under the normal procedures for Assembly Bills; however, as I have explained, its introduction only became possible with the conclusion of the talks process and following extensive discussions and consultations on the matter.”
“We ask Members for their support to having the Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Bill progressed by the accelerated passage procedure.”
“<BR /> <BR />The special circumstances associated with the Bill have therefore occasioned the exceptional request to the Assembly for the use of the accelerated passage procedure. An institutional reform of this nature, which will result in a change to the size of the Assembly, is considered to be unique in the change that it will effect. As such, there is minimal likelihood of such circumstances recurring for the foreseeable future that would necessitate the use of this procedure again on this matter. <BR /> <BR />A Fresh Start has provided a basis for addressing the important institutional reform of the Assembly and has made it possible for us to move forward, but the opportunity to do so needs to be taken quickly.”
“We believe that to leave the matter unresolved into the new mandate would incur justifiable criticism. Providing for the change by means of this legislation will also provide certainty for the political parties as to the future size of the Assembly and provide sufficient time for them to consider and plan for that reduction. <BR /> <BR />There is a real public appetite for change to take place and an expectation that it will occur within a reasonable time frame. Were the passage of the Bill during the current mandate to be impeded through accelerated passage not being granted, implementation of the change would be delayed and the House would be out of step with public sentiment on the matter.”
“Without use of the procedure, we anticipate that, at best, the Bill could only reach its Consideration Stage by the time the Assembly is dissolved and the current mandate ends in late March. In such circumstances, the Bill would therefore fall, its legislative passage would cease, and the momentum for the change to be made would be lost or, at best, considerably delayed into the next mandate. <BR /> <BR />It is our belief that, were the motion to permit the Bill to proceed by way of accelerated passage not to be supported by the House and were it to fail, this institution would be out of step with the broad sentiment, both political and amongst the wider electorate, for the change to take place and for the matter to be definitively settled during the current mandate.”
“<BR /> <BR />Due to the stage that we have reached in the current Assembly mandate and the guarantee that the Bill will complete all its legislative stages before the end of the mandate and receive Royal Assent before the election, it is, in practical terms, necessary for the accelerated passage procedure to be used.”
“<BR /> <BR />It would, of course, have been preferable if the Bill could have been introduced in time for it to have been moved forward under the usual processes and to have avoided the use of the accelerated passage procedure. Although it had been hoped to introduce the Bill at an earlier stage, immediately following the conclusion of the Fresh Start Agreement, it was first necessary to seek the Executive's agreement to the introduction of the Bill. As a change to the number of Members to be returned for each constituency is a reserved matter, it was also necessary to seek the Secretary of State's consent to the consideration of the Bill by the Assembly. That consent was received shortly before the Assembly went into its Christmas recess, so the Bill is now being progressed at the earliest possible opportunity in this term.”
“<BR /> <BR />Through the discussions and debate that have taken place on the issue, it is clear that, while there is an acknowledgement of the particular circumstances here, which provided for an Assembly that is, per capita of population, larger than its counterparts in Scotland and Wales, there is now broad consensus among the parties that there should be a reduction in its membership and that the legislation by which that can be provided should be made now and without further delay. The Fresh Start Agreement reaffirmed the commitment in the original Stormont House Agreement to reduce the number of Members returned for each constituency in time for the 2021 election and committed to having the Bill introduced in the Assembly no later than the end of November 2015 and for it to apply to any post-2016 extraordinary election.”
“In 2012, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee produced a report on reduction of the number of Members that identified areas of commonality broadly comparable to what is now proposed. Indeed, a reduction to five in the number of Members to be returned for each constituency was the number most commonly referred to during the Committee's inquiry on the matter.”
“They included discussion about the anticipated timescale for the passage of the Bill in the Chamber and the need for it to use the accelerated passage procedure if it is to conclude its legislative stages before the end of the mandate. No member of the Committee voiced concern over the principle of the Bill, which is to reduce the membership of the Assembly by way of a reduction of one in the number of Members returned by each constituency. I now wish to explain those issues to the Assembly and to seek Members' support for the use of the accelerated passage procedure for the Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Bill. <BR /> <BR />Reform of the Assembly's institutions, including the size of the membership of the Assembly, has been the subject of lengthy and detailed discussion and debate over a considerable period.”
“The motion has been tabled in accordance with Standing Order 42(4) to seek Assembly approval for the Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Bill proceeding under the accelerated passage procedure. On Tuesday 12 January, in advance of the Bill's introduction in the Assembly, junior Minister McCann and I attended a meeting of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which had been designated as the appropriate Committee to examine the Bill. At that meeting, we explained, as we are required to do, the reasons why the accelerated passage procedure is needed for the Bill, the consequences of it not being granted and the steps taken to minimise the future use of the procedure. Having provided those explanations, we answered members' questions on a range of issues related to the Bill.”
“One of the options highlighted in the paper is that more work will need to take place, perhaps by some experts, on the scale of the issues to be tackled.”
“My understanding is that that paper has already been circulated. If that is not the case, it is due to be circulated very soon, with the aim of it being presented at the next Executive meeting. There are set costs with inquiries, as the Member will be aware, and we have the costings for this one. Although the final cost depends on the number of people who come forward to the inquiry, the set costs remain the same. The number of people is a small variable in the overall cost, which is likely to be in the millions — possibly above £10 million — for any new statutory inquiry, regardless of the number of people. However, that detailed work will take place after decisions are made. There is a range of issues with the data and information available to us on issues outside the scope of the current inquiry.”
“I thank the Member for his question. In preparation for the historical institutional abuse inquiry and in the project design, we looked at a range of other jurisdictions, not only their mechanisms for such inquiries but their redress mechanisms. Therefore, we have some information on that. As the chairman of the inquiry highlighted, he has undertaken a consultation process, and I assume that the outcome of that, specifically in relation to redress, will be shared with us, so it would be pre-emptive for us to commence scoping now. We will await that report and make a decision on actions on the back of that.”
“Those are all issues that will need to be considered in due course, depending on how the Executive decide to move forward.”
“I thank the Member for his question. On the budget for the HIA inquiry, I am pleased to say that we took some time in the design of the inquiry to ensure that its focus would be on the needs of the victims and survivors and that, for example, huge legal bills would not be the main story coming out of it. As I have highlighted, we also have an independent chairperson who has been very responsible in the management of that budget. I am pleased to say that, year on year, the inquiry has come in just under the projected cost, so the inquiry is being run efficiently and effectively. <BR /> <BR />On the matter of redress, you are absolutely right. In terms of the inquiry and redress process in the Republic of Ireland, for example, there was a considerable contribution by the Roman Catholic Church, for example.”
“As the Member will be aware, in relation to those other matters, there is a scoping paper on the options available. The paper will go to the Executive this week, I understand, so we await the outcome of that discussion.”