I beg to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 4/2000] to confer new powers on the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland in respect of discrimination by reason of disability; to provide for the appointment of additional Commissioners of that Commission; to amend the reporting period of that Commission; to amend the transitional and saving provisions of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998; and for connected purposes.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why was the Assembly given no notice of this Bill? Are we not entitled to be given notice?

No. In many other places, notice is not given of the First Reading of a Bill. The First Reading is purely a technical device to publicise the order for the Bill to be printed. When the Bill comes to its subsequent stages, those will go down on the Order Paper, but normally the First Reading does not. In certain circumstances it cannot go down on the Order Paper because the Speaker may decide to bring the Bill forward early, and that decision can be taken after the Order Paper has been published.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In the House of Commons, at times, the First Reading of a Bill does appear on the Order Paper.

The Business Committee was not informed about this either. I understood that nothing could come before this House without passing through that Committee.

I do not know about the House of Commons, but certainly in the House of Lords there is never any notice of the First Reading of a Bill. In any case, there are differences here about the question of Bills coming forward, advice to the Speaker, the Speaker's response, and so on.

There was, in fact, discussion in the Business Committee about Bills coming forward and the need for urgency in moving forward with the business of the House. It seems reasonable that this important Bill should come forward as quickly as possible.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This is, as you say, an important Bill that you are asking the House to accept. None of us know what it is about. How can we possibly accept it in this way?

The House has no option but to accept it. Under Standing Orders, it is not open for debate. It is purely a technical matter whereby the Bill is presented in order to be printed. It is not possible for the House to know exactly what is in the Bill until it has been printed. That is the purpose of the exercise. That is what the First Stage is about in the other places that Dr Paisley and I have referred to. It is not a matter for debate. The only way it could be done differently would be if there were a pre-legislative scrutiny stage, which, of course, there is not.

There has been wide consultation on this Bill. A substantive Bill has been proposed at Westminster, and the bodies representing the disabled in Northern Ireland have made representations to it. The First Minister and I have had discussions with the Equality Commission and with other groups. It was their request, and our desire, that this Bill be finalised by May 2000 so that there should be no gap in time between the completion of this Bill and the completion of the Bill at Westminster. Such a gap would have left Northern Ireland without any legislation on this crucially important matter. There has already been wide-ranging consultation.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It should be made clear that the House could vote against this. I do not think any of us want to do that, but the House is entitled to say that the Bill cannot be printed.

In fact there is no provision in Standing Orders for the House to do that. This is not a Question in that sense. There is no opportunity for this to be voted on; it is simply a presentation to the House and an order to be printed. That is the position under Standing Orders. Of course, the House may change the Standing Orders, and we would have to consider the legality of that with regard to the Act, but at this time the position is as I have stated.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think that anyone in the Assembly is saying that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should not introduce such a Bill, that it should not flow naturally from Great Britain legislation and that it is not timely for it to be introduced at this stage, but because the heading on the Order Paper merely reads "Executive Committee Business", Members have no way of knowing what types of issues will be brought forward.

I suspect that Mr Mallon knew before today that he was going to introduce the Bill. Could the introduction of various Bills be listed on the Order Paper as a matter of courtesy and to keep Members informed?

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Had Mr P Robinson carried out his duty by attending the Executive meetings, he would have known all about the matter.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Perhaps before -

Such meetings are covered by confidentiality, so I could not have told Colleagues anyway.

Order. I will respond to points of order, and Members should try to keep some order. As far as the heading "Executive Committee Business" is concerned, Standing Orders make it clear that decisions about that matter or on the ordering of that matter are not for the Business Committee to make. It is for the Executive Committee to order the business in respect of that slot on the Order Paper.

Mr Robinson raised some legal questions - for example, that this would have been known about and sorted out well in advance. Because of the timescale, that is not necessarily the case. The urgency with which the First Minster and the Deputy First Minister sought to bring this issue before the House meant that matters had to be resolved as quickly as possible. However, as regards the matter of the First Readings of Bills going down, there is no particular reason why that should be the case. In practical terms it would not always be possible for that to be the case, otherwise all Bills would have to be delayed further.

For example, this Bill could not have been brought today had that requirement been in Standing Orders - which it is not.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If, like the First Minister, members of the Democratic Unionist Party were in the business of breaking election pledges, then we would, of course, be sitting in the Executive. It may be all right to say that members of the Executive Committee who are present may know that these Bills will be coming forward, but what about the other Members of the House? Do the First Minister and Deputy First Minister - particularly the First Minister, given his remarks - have no consideration for other Members, who should at least be given the courtesy of knowing what is going to arise from the Order Paper? [Interruption]

Order.

The First Minister may laugh -

Order. The Minister will resume his seat. This is not a point of order; this is becoming a debate. The Standing Orders are clear. It is not necessary for First Readings of Bills - certainly for First Readings at Westminster - to be on the Order Paper. In this case the matter could not have been on the Order Paper. That is the ruling, and I am not prepared to take further points of order on that specific issue. Some of the issues raised were not points of order. This technical matter is becoming a matter for debate, and that is not appropriate.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You would need to make it clear that even if a member of the Executive attends an Executive meeting, he would not be able to inform Colleagues of issues that would be coming forward if they were confidential. The person who was out of order in this debate was the First Minister.

Order. How the Executive Committee conducts its own business is not a matter for me or for the House.

The important thing is that the Executive Committee decided, rightly, that Northern Ireland should not lack disability legislation because of a particular timescale. This type of issue will arise in relation to other Departments. That may require urgent legislation so that parity is not broken. I should have thought that Mr Dodds would have more than a passing interest in ensuring that this House proceeded very quickly with matters that affect his Department - the Department for Social Development - as this one does, so that people are not disadvantaged as a result of delay.

The position is clear in the Standing Orders. I have given a ruling, and we must now proceed to the next item of business.

TOP

I am required to supervise the appointment of a Deputy Chairman of the Audit Committee. Mr Alban Maginness, the Deputy Chairman of that Committee, has decided to resign, as he has been appointed to the Chair of another Committee. We must proceed by running the d'Hondt system.

I ask Mr McGrady, as the nominating officer of the SDLP, if he wishes to nominate another Member.

Under the d'Hondt mechanism the Social Democratic and Labour Party has the vice- chairmanship of the Audit Committee. However, my party, in agreement with others, is prepared to leave this post vacant in order that a representative from the minor parties may participate in the Audit Committee. For that reason, I will not nominate for this position.

Mr Trimble has advised me that Mr Jim Wilson will act as nominating officer of the Ulster Unionist Party.

I call on Mr Jim Wilson, as the nominating officer of the political party for which the formula laid down in Standing Orders gives the next-highest figure, to nominate a person who is a member of his party and of the Assembly to be the Deputy Chairman of the Audit Committee.

The Ulster Unionist Party will not be making a nomination.

I call on Dr Paisley as the nominating officer of the political party for which the formula laid down in Standing Orders gives the next-highest figure, to nominate a person who is a member of his party and of the Assembly to be Deputy Chairman of the Audit Committee.

I will not be nominating.

I now call on Mr Mitchel McLaughlin as the nominating officer of the political party -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Should Mr Neeson not be the next nominating officer?

I am grateful for that point of order. Mr Neeson should be the next nominating officer.

I call on Mr Neeson, as the nominating officer of the political party for which the formula laid down in Standing Orders gives the next-highest figure, to nominate a person who is a member of his party and of the Assembly to be Deputy Chairman of the Audit Committee.

We decline to nominate.

I call on Mr McLaughlin, as the nominating officer of the political party for which the formula laid down in Standing Orders gives the next-highest figure, to nominate a person who is a member of his party and of the Assembly to be Deputy Chairman of the Audit Committee.

Despite the delay, Sinn Féin will not be making a nomination.

I call on Mr McCartney, as the nominating officer of the political party for which the formula laid down in Standing Orders gives the next-highest figure, to nominate a person who is a member of his party and of the Assembly to be Deputy Chairman of the Audit Committee.

I never nominate in these matters.

I call on Mr Ervine, as the nominating officer of the political party for which the formula laid down in Standing Orders gives the next-highest figure, to nominate a person who is a member of his party and of the Assembly to be Deputy Chairman of the Audit Committee.

I nominate Mr Billy Hutchinson for the position.

Is Mr Hutchinson willing to accept the office for which he has been nominated?

I am.

I therefore announce the appointment of Mr Billy Hutchinson as Deputy Chairman of the Audit Committee.

TOP

Following the appointment of the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen to Standing Committees, it falls to the Assembly to appoint the membership of the Standing Committees. The Business Committee agreed the proportionate share of membership among the parties, and it fell to the Whips to propose the Members' names. One result of this exercise was that two Members were nominated to serve on both the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee. This is contrary to Standing Orders, as only one member of the Public Accounts Committee may sit on the Audit Committee also. We therefore have an amendment in the name of Mr J Wilson which will rectify the situation and allow the appointments to proceed. If this is not agreed, it will not be possible to allow the other memberships to proceed.

That Mr Derek Hussey shall replace Mr Billy Bell on the Audit Committee membership list in the paper 'OP/99 Standing Committees'. - [Mr J Wilson]

We now proceed to the appointment of members to the Standing Committees.

I beg to move

That the Members listed in the paper 'OP4/99 Standing Committees', as amended, shall be the members of the relevant Standing Committees.

In accordance with the notes already given to Members with OP4/99 on Standing Committees, I propose the nominees to the Public Accounts Committee, the Audit Committee, the Committee of the Centre, the Committee on Procedures and the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

That the Members listed in the paper 'OP4/99 Standing Committees', as amended, shall be the members of the relevant Standing Committees.

Since the appointment of Members to the Statutory Committees some changes have been proposed, occasioned in some cases by the appointment of Members to other offices and the knock-on effects of that. There is a motion proposing changes to Statutory Committee membership, and that is in the name of Mr McGrady.

I beg to move

That Mr John Dallat shall replace Mr Denis Haughey on the Agriculture Committee; that Mr Derek Hussey shall replace Mr Dermot Nesbitt on the Finance and Personnel Committee; that Mr Alex Attwood shall replace Mr John Dallat on the Finance and Personnel Committee; and that Mr P J Bradley shall replace Mr Denis Haughey on the Regional Development Committee.

In accordance with the motion before us, and consequential, as you say, Mr Speaker, on the appointment of junior Ministers and other matters, I propose these four changes to the membership of the Statutory Committees.

That Mr John Dallat shall replace Mr Denis Haughey on the Agriculture Committee; that Mr Derek Hussey shall replace Mr Dermot Nesbitt on the Finance and Personnel Committee; that Mr Alex Attwood shall replace Mr John Dallat on the Finance and Personnel Committee; and that Mr P J Bradley shall replace Mr Denis Haughey on the Regional Development Committee.

TOP

Members will see that the Consideration Stage of the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Bill is next on the Order Paper. However, we cannot take this until at least tomorrow because of the staged intervals that are required by Standing Orders.

TOP

I beg to move the following motion:

This House rejects the Patten Commission's report and calls upon the Secretary of State to reject proposals which would reward and elevate terrorists while demoralising and destroying the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whose members, both full-time and part-time, have diligently and with great distinction served the whole community.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this issue this morning. As Members will be aware, only about 20 minutes were left at the end of the proceedings last week, and that was not enough time to enable us to explore these matters fully and allow Members who wished to express a view to do so. For that reason we withdrew the motion and sought permission for it to be reintroduced this week. It has been reintroduced, its terms are identical, and I am grateful to the members of the Business Committee who have allowed it to appear on the Order Paper today.

It is right and timely that the Assembly should be deliberating this matter, given the events of last week and the statement made in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State to the effect that the Government are adopting virtually all the recommendations of the Patten Commission's Report. Indeed, some reports made previous to the statement that only some changes would be made turned out to be largely groundless. There was some minor tinkering and some very minor changes were made to the proposals, but virtually all recommendations of real substance and meat were adopted, as were all those that are controversial and deeply devisive.

In spite of the large number of representations that were made right across the Province, the Government, nevertheless, proceeded to introduce virtually all the recommendations of the Patten Report.

In spite of the fact that, at present, this is a reserved matter, it is right that the Assembly should deliver an opinion on it. It would be amazing if the Government and all the pundits, commentators and media personnel who are so quick to tell us how important this place is and that the Assembly must and will make an impact on the lives of the ordinary people of this Province chose to ignore the democratic decisions of the House, particularly on an issue such as this.

I hope that the House will decisively reject the Patten Commission's report, and its conclusions and recommendations, and that in so doing, it will send a strong, emphatic signal to the Secretary of State and the Government that what they have announced is unacceptable, certainly as far as the Unionist community is concerned.

I am sure that during this debate the deep anger, the deep frustration and the deep sense of disillusionment that is felt right across the Unionist community, and by many moderate Nationalists as well, will become apparent. Members of the minority community to whom I have spoken recently have expressed deep concerns about where all this will lead with regard to the policing of their communities. They have also expressed concern about the way in which Sinn Féin/IRA has hijacked the policing agenda and about the way in which the SDLP appears to have lain down while the Government have responded to the demands of the Sinn Féin/IRA propaganda barrage and to those demands alone.

Of all the issues which have flowed from the Belfast Agreement, this is the one which most touches a raw nerve in this community. It is bad enough that we should have unreconstructed IRA terrorist frontmen and their supporters in the Government of Northern Ireland; it is bad enough that virtually all terrorist prisoners have been released much earlier than they would otherwise have been, even under the normal early-release schemes; it is bad enough that we should have all-Ireland, cross-border bodies with executive powers - and I note that one of those bodies will meet in Newry today after a meeting to be attended by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment with their Southern counterparts; and it is bad enough that all these things should have happened as a result of the Belfast Agreement.

All these matters have caused deep concern in the Unionist community, but now the axe is being taken to the RUC. You have only to pick up the newspapers, you have only to go out among people, and you have only to listen to media reports to know that ordinary people on the ground are deeply apprehensive and angry at the proposals which were made by the Secretary of State last week.

I urge the First Minister to get out among ordinary people occasionally and listen to what they say. I heard him on the radio on Saturday saying that people should not listen to those who are expressing concerns about the Belfast Agreement and to those who are opposed to the agreement. Where on earth has he been over the past 18 months? Who on earth is he talking to? He is certainly not talking to people on the ground.

Every person in the House from a Unionist background - and, indeed, from other backgrounds - will know that the message coming through from the grass roots of every section of the community is one of deep anger and concern at the way in which the police have been treated, at the way in which the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been decimated in spite of its 80 years of service to the people of Northern Ireland and in spite of the 30 years of horrendous injury and aggression that have been inflicted on that gallant force.

I would like to pay tribute - as, I am sure, will other Members - to the 302 officers, both full-time and part-time, who died in the service of this community during the recent period of the troubles. I also want to pay tribute to the almost 10,000 officers who have suffered injuries, many of them appalling, lifelong injuries, at the hands of terrorists.

No one has spoken more eloquently about the hurt and anger felt than spokespersons for current RUC members and disabled officers who regard this as the ultimate insult to their membership and to the memory of those who fell while serving Northern Ireland and defending the community against violence and terrorism.

As I said at the outset, all the main controversial and deeply divisive proposals in the Patten Report are going to be implemented. On all the key issues, this Government sided with the Provisional Republican movement against the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the decent, law-abiding majority in this community.

What was the response from the Republican community and movement to this announcement? On the very day this announcement was made in the House of Commons, we saw the Sinn Féin leadership carrying the coffin of the IRA killer of an RUC officer through the streets of Belfast. Yesterday we saw them - Ministers included - standing before a memorial to the IRA killer of a policeman. That killing took place back in 1942, and I have had many complaints from people who have pointed out that while we know the name of the IRA killer and have read background pieces on who and what he was, we have heard very little about the victim of this crime - an innocent police officer who was done to death by an IRA killer. There is much concentration on the victims of crimes. The media sometimes pay lip-service to this issue, as do some Members. Where, however, was the balance in the reporting of this issue? Where was the attempt to find out how this affected the victim of that dastardly crime? Where was the in-depth analysis of just what a vicious, nasty murder that crime was?

The people of Northern Ireland should be reminded that the police officer was a member of the Roman Catholic community.

TOP