Northern Ireland Assembly
Tuesday 4 July 2000
Contents
Allowances to Members of The Assembly Bill - Final Stage
The sitting begun and suspended on Monday 3 July 2000 was resumed at 10.30 am (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair).
Fair Employment Regulations
Junior Minister (Office of First and Deputy First Ministers) (Mr Haughey): I beg to move
That the draft Fair Employment (Monitoring) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 be approved.
These regulations are detailed and technical, and for the benefit of Members, I shall give brief details of the background that has led to them.
The Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 made several changes to the monitoring requirements laid down by the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. The detail of those changes is included in the Fair Employment (Monitoring) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999, which affect monitoring returns from 1 January 2001 onwards.
Under the 1999 regulations all employers who are registered with the Equality Commission are, for the first time, required to provide information on the religious affiliation of part-time employees and those applying for employment. Previously only large private-sector employers and the public sector provided information on applicants and appointees, and information on part-time employees was excluded. In addition, the public sector and the larger private-sector firms must now provide information about leavers and promotees.
It was this latter group that caused problems for employers and led to these amending regulations. The definition of a "promotee" in the 1999 regulations would have required an employer to record as "a promotion" a period of temporary promotion, such as acting up, regardless of how long that lasted. Therefore an employee who was deputised to a higher grade for even one day to cover the absence of a colleague would have to be recorded. The effect would be to distort the overall picture, and clearly that was not the intention.
These regulations amend the definition of "promotee" in the 1999 regulations to ensure that only those promotions that have lasted or are, by notice in writing, intended to last for at least six months are counted. In drafting these regulations we have also taken the opportunity to remove from the 1999 regulations the obligation on employers to provide detailed information about apprentices as appointees or leavers. Less than 5% of those registered with the Equality Commission employ five or more apprentices, and therefore, given the small number who are employed by individual employers, the commission has suggested that a religious breakdown of the total number of apprentice employees would suffice. That means employers would continue to provide the same information on apprentices as they do at present under the 1989 regulations.
The Equality Commission brought the difficulties with the 1999 regulations to the attention of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister following a series of seminars they had arranged with employers to raise awareness of the regulations. Employers will welcome this clarification and the lessening of the monitoring requirements in respect of apprentices.
The draft regulations have been scrutinised by the Examiner of Statutory Rules, and there are no points that he would wish to bring to the attention of Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the draft Fair Employment (Monitoring) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 be approved.
Allowances to Members of The Assembly Bill
Final Stage
Resolved:
That the Allowances to Members of the Assembly Bill [NIA 2/99] do now pass. — [Mr Fee]
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Assembly Standing Orders
The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Chomairle. I beg to move
That the Committee on Procedures be authorised to update Standing Orders of the Assembly for punctuation and grammar and annually to republish Standing Orders.
At the outset I would like to place on record my thanks to the members of the Committee on Procedures for their work over the last number of weeks. In January and February 2000 we were presented with the fact that there were a large number of adjustments needed to the Standing Orders as published. There were a large number of typographical and punctuation changes required.
There were also, as you and many other Members are aware, a large number of matters that needed to be addressed, and we approached this business on the basis of prioritising the work that needed to be done so as to bring together a package for the last sitting before recess. We will address some of those matters today and we will continue to address others as we go on.
The work was very business-like. There was a corps of people I would like to particularly thank. They attended all the meetings and assisted us in getting as much work done as possible.
Members should be aware that the latest version of Standing Orders is available on the Internet as of 3 February 2000. The latest printed version is available from the Printed Paper Office and is dated 9 March 1999.
There are approximately 83 typographical and punctuation errors in Standing Orders. In correcting the errors, the Committee examined them and accepted that corrections would not alter the substance of the Orders. The purpose of this motion is to avoid Members having to vote on corrections of punctuation and grammar which may occur in the text of Standing Orders. The motion also authorises the Committee to issue a revised updated version of Standing Orders annually to take account of substantive changes made during the year. Republishing Standing Orders annually means that any paragraphs renumbered due to new sections being inserted can be numbered sequentially and Members will work from a new edition after the Summer recess.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Committee on Procedures be authorised to update Standing Orders of the Assembly for punctuation and grammar and annually to republish Standing Orders.
Mr C Murphy:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move the following motion:
In Standing Order 8, line 2, delete "two minutes" and insert "one minute".
During a broad discussion between the parties here we have found that people would prefer to have one minute for prayers or silence at the start of business. This is simply a proposal to amend Standing Orders to reflect that broad consensus.
Mr Weir:
Far be it for me to stand against the consensus but I wonder at the purpose of this amendment.
Up to now we have devoted two minutes for prayers to God at the start of the day, and there has been no overwhelming argument that this is too long a period. I do not see the case for cutting it to one minute. There is perhaps little enough time given to an element of spiritual contemplation in the Assembly.
What is the real purpose of this motion? I would prefer the Standing Order to remain as it is and will be voting accordingly.
Dr Birnie:
I would like to echo the comments of my Colleague, Mr Weir. That is a rather novel experience, but for once we will be voting in the same way. I agree with him and cannot see any benefit to the Assembly of an extra minute for business at the start of each sitting. More significantly, if we make this amendment, it will signal to the public that the Assembly is downgrading the importance of a period for reflection or prayer. That would be a negative thing, and for that reason we should not support this proposed change.
Mr Speaker:
Does the Committee Chairman wish to wind up?
Mr C Murphy:
A Cheann Comhairle. Views were forwarded to the Procedures Committee by various Assembly members and Committees. Some Members felt that the two minutes at the start of the sitting was too long and they wanted the Standing Order amended. There was also debate on whether Members should say prayers or have a period for reflection at the start of a plenary sitting.
This matter is not something that taxed us greatly. It did not cause any great arguments and was not something that Committee Members felt very strongly about. The views brought forward to us suggested that the simplest way to deal with the issue was to put an amendment to Standing Order 8 to reduce the time spent at the start of the session from two minutes to one to the vote, and that is what we are doing today.
Mr Speaker:
I remind the House that changes to Standing Orders require cross-community support, as defined in the two formulae in the Act. I have established a precedent whereby if I sense that there is support from all sides, the House is not required to divide. However, if there are any voices against, the House must divide.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 31; Noes 29.
AYES
Nationalists
Gerry Adams, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, John Fee, Michelle Gildernew, Denis Haughey, John Hume, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.
Unionist
Billy Bell, Ivan Davis, James Leslie, Alan McFarland, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.
Other
Monica McWilliams.
NOES
Unionist
Ian Adamson, Roy Beggs, Tom Benson, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Nigel Dodds, Reg Empey, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, John Gorman, William Hay, Derek Hussey, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, David McClarty, William McCrea, Ken Robinson, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells.
Other
Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, Sean Neeson.
Total Votes 60 Total Ayes 31 ( 51.7%)
Nationalist Votes 24 Nationalist Ayes 24 ( 100%)
Unionist Votes 32 Unionist Ayes 6 ( 18.8%)
Question accordingly negatived.
10.45 am
Mr C Murphy:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move the following motion:
In Standing Order 10(2)(b) delete all and insert "at the end of each sitting one hour shall be set aside for an Adjournment debate;".
I am somewhat bemused at the vote on the previous motion. There was consensus in the Committee, and we received wide representation to change the period. The length of time does not tax us greatly. I do not know whether the good Lord will appreciate being lambasted for two minutes instead of one, but that is a matter for himself.
This motion is about Adjournment debates. The Committee on Procedures recognises that Adjournment debates are important, especially for Back-Benchers. However, the three-hour period currently set out in Standing Orders is too long, given the time pressures on Assembly Members. Several motions to suspend Standing Orders, to circumvent this Standing Order have already been accepted, even in the short time that the Assembly has been sitting.
Rev Dr William McCrea:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it correct for the Lobby doors to be open when the Assembly is sitting?
Mr Speaker:
It is not appropriate for the doors to be open. It is perfectly acceptable for Members to move in and out the Lobby, but the doors should not be open. I thank the Member, and ask Mr Murphy to continue.
Mr C Murphy:
Go raibh maith agat. On occasions, business has finished before 3.00 pm on Tuesdays, and Members have had to return later for the Adjournment debate. At other times, business has continued after the Adjournment debate has concluded. Against that background, the Committee proposes to regularise arrangements to provide one hour for an Adjournment debate at the end of the sitting, whenever it occurs. I am grateful to Mr Morrow for tabling his amendments. In our urgency to deal with some of these matters, one or two consequential amendments were overlooked. I am grateful to the Member for bringing omissions to our attention and for tidying-up the matter.
Mr Speaker:
The first amendment on the Marshalled List will be discussed in the context of the debate on the next motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
In Standing Order 10 (2)(b) delete all and insert "at the end of each sitting one hour shall be set aside for an Adjournment debate;".
Mr Speaker:
I remind Members again that the Act provides that changes to Standing Orders require cross-community support. If there is nem con, with an indication of support from all sides, I shall take that without a Division.
Mr C Murphy:
A Cheann Comhairle, I beg to move the following motion:
In Standing Order 10(2)(c) delete "on each Tuesday on which there is a sitting."
This is consequential amendment to the previous motion.
Mr Speaker:
Amendment 1 on the Marshalled List stands in the name of Mr Morrow.
Mr Wells, do you wish to speak on this matter?
Mr Wells:
I understood that the debate on this issue would be in tandem with the discussion on the previous motion, but the vote has already been taken on the curtailment of the Adjournment debate to one hour. I thought that you had ruled that these two motions would be taken together.
Mr Speaker:
No, I said that the amendment would be taken with this motion because it related to this motion. We cannot take two motions together. The amendment is an amendment to the motion currently before the Assembly — not the motion on the Adjournment debate, which was agreed. We are now discussing the motion on Tuesday sittings. It is really a technical, consequential and tidying-up amendment.
11.00 am
Mr Wells:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will check Hansard, but I took a clear inference from what you said that these two motions would be taken together, and that if someone wished to oppose the curtailment of the Adjournment debate to one hour, the matter could be debated at that point. You are ruling that that point has now passed.
Mr Speaker:
You have misunderstood my ruling. When Mr Murphy spoke to the Adjournment debate motion, he mentioned the amendment which was standing in the name of Mr Morrow, and he welcomed it. I indicated at that stage that that amendment would be taken along with the next motion, because it related to it.
Amendment made: At end add
", and in paragraph (9)(b) delete ‘or, in the case of a Tuesday, after three o’clock.’ " — [Mr Morrow]
Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
In Standing Order 10(2)(c) delete "on each Tuesday on which there is a sitting", and in paragraph (9)(b) delete "or, in the case of a Tuesday, after three o’clock".
Resolved:
In Standing Order 10(6) delete "on Monday sittings and at 3.00 pm on Tuesday sittings" and insert "on each day on which there is a sitting". — [Mr C Murphy]
Mr C Murphy:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, I beg to move the following motion:
After Standing Order 10(11) add "(12) A session of the Assembly shall be that period from the commencement of business following the summer recess until the end of the subsequent summer recess".
Standing Orders already refer to sessions, and this new Standing Order provides a definition of the span of a session. The reason that it includes the summer recess is that if for any particular reason the House is recalled during the summer, it will be recalled within a defined session.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
After Standing Order 10(11) add "(12) A session of the Assembly shall be that period from the commencement of business following the summer recess until the end of the subsequent summer recess".
Mr C Murphy:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, I beg to move the following motion:
In Standing Order 20(1) delete "on Tuesdays".
This is a consequential amendment to Standing Order (10). Given the role that has just been passed, the Adjournment debate may not now always take place on a Tuesday. This change provides the necessary adjustment to allow Private Notice Questions to be taken at the appropriate juncture.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
In Standing Order 20(1) delete "on Tuesdays".
Mr C Murphy:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move the following motion:
After Standing Order 29(c) insert: "(d) Further Consideration Stage: consideration of, and an opportunity for Members to vote on, the details of the Bill, including amendments to the Bill."
The Committee had a long and detailed discussion on the issue, and, following advice from experts in other legislatures and the views expressed locally, a further stage to provide time for amendments to be made to legislation has been recommended. The Committee supports the recommendation.
There are several reasons for allowing a further stage for amendments to be made to a Bill. Currently, there is only one opportunity to table amendments, which limits detailed scrutiny and the ability to modify the Bill’s provisions. That can result in bad law. It prohibits the Member in charge of the Bill from introducing technical or consequential amendments, and invites amendments that effectively render the legislation unworkable or contradictory.
There was some debate about whether the further consideration stage should allow Members, other than the Member moving the Bill, to table consequential amendments or amendments for which notice has been given at an earlier stage. The Committee felt that other Members should be allowed to table amendments at the further consideration stage. All amendments will have to be cleared with the Bill Office, which will effectively rule out previously debated amendments. The Speaker can rule on the admissibility of any amendment. Conventions elsewhere suggest that amendments that have already been considered cannot be retabled at the further consideration stage. At this later stage, there will be greater onus on Members to table necessary consequential amendments.
Mr Fee:
I support the amendment to Standing Orders, with some reservations. Members will know that I have experience of bringing small and simple, though somewhat contentious, Bills through all legislative stages. In a small Bill, consisting of only five clauses and the title, we found that amendments to amendments sometimes need to be made. If there is only one chance to get a Bill right, the chances are that complicated legislation will not be right first time round.
My reservations about introducing a further consideration stage is that it will eat into Assembly time. It means that all the work involving detailed consideration, debate and analysis will take place on the Floor of the Assembly. I ask the Committee on Procedures to consider a mechanism whereby we can be more efficient with our time and more effective in our legislative procedures. However, in the absence of such a mechanism, I recommend that the further consideration stage should be included in Standing Orders.
Mr Weir:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are we legally competent to put this amendment through? The Northern Ireland Act 1998, which established the Assembly, lays down certain provisions regarding procedures for passing legislation. Can we add an additional stage? I am happy with the spirit of the proposal but, from a legal point of view, do we have the power to add an additional stage in the passage of legislation when such procedures have already been decided by the Act?
Mr Speaker:
We sought advice on this matter. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 sets out minimum requirements of consideration. It is hard to believe that Parliament would set down a maximum level of consideration that is substantially less than the consideration that it believes necessary for legislation. It seems to me that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides the absolute minimum requirement for consideration, not a maximum permitted level of consideration. In that context, the Committee on Procedures can put this motion before the House.
Mr Weir:
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am suitably reassured.
Mr Leslie:
Some of my remarks will relate to Mr Weir’s point. Like Mr Fee, I support the concept of a Further Consideration Stage. I am not confident that we have the methodology right yet. We should take this step, and it may then emerge over time that we have to look further at our procedure for putting Bills through. That feeling is widely held among those of us who have had the opportunity to consider Bills at Committee Stage.
I will take this opportunity to comment on the procedure whereby the Statutory Committee for the subject matter always takes the Committee Stage of a Bill. This refers to Mr Weir’s point. It was in the agreement and therefore it is in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We may find in time that we get a queue of Bills at one Statutory Committee, while through no fault of another Department — it is not in the nature of some Departments to pass very much legislation — other Committees are not dealing with Bills at all. The House as a whole may wish to consider whether that convention gives us the most sensible set of procedures for considering legislation. We will probably want to return to that matter in the future.
We need to reconsider the procedure, which again is a consequence of the agreement and the legislation, whereby all amendments have to be brought to the House, rather than being voted through in Committee and placed on the face of the Bill, which would then come to the House as an amended Bill. There are good reasons why that is the case, but we might be able to find another procedure for dealing with that.
For the time being, it is prudent for us to allow ourselves a Further Consideration Stage. There is a risk that, particularly with a complicated set of interlocking amendments, and despite the best efforts of everyone involved, we may end up with a contradictory set of clauses. Therefore, we must have another stage at which we can amend them.
A Bill that completes its stages here then goes to the Attorney-General for consideration on vires grounds. What happens if he sends it back as ultra vires? I believe the whole Bill gets thrown out. It might be more helpful if it came back to the House for further consideration. That is probably something else that we will establish over time. For the time being, I support the motion.
Mr Speaker:
On a point of order that was contained in the Member’s last paragraph, if the Attorney-General were to rule a piece of legislation ultra vires, it would come back to the House for a Reconsideration Stage, not for a Further Consideration Stage.
Mr C Murphy:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I am grateful for that clarification. I appreciate the concerns expressed by the three Members who spoke. The Committee considered this in great detail. We were clear that there is not enough opportunity for amendments to be put to Bills. We got that advice from practically everyone we discussed this with. There is not enough opportunity for Members to table amendments to Bills to constitute proper scrutiny of legislation going through the House.
We have proposed a Further Consideration Stage. The safeguards are that at the Further Consideration Stage, Members proposing amendments will have to have regard to consequential amendments and clear them with the Bills Office. Also, the Speaker has discretion in considering amendments that would reopen debates held at the Consideration Stage. Therefore there are some safeguards in it. I appreciate that we are, to an extent, taking a leap in the dark. The Committee on Procedures was very much aware of that.
11.15 am
As with all Standing Orders, there may well be a case, as Members have seen already, for revisiting them at any time. That may well be the case with this Standing Order that we are introducing. Experience might tell us that it is not the correct procedure to adopt, and we will revisit it if necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
After Standing Order 29(c) insert "(d) Further Consideration Stage: consideration of, and an opportunity for Members to vote on, the details of the Bill, including amendments to the Bill."
Mr C Murphy:
I beg to move the following motion:
In Standing Order 31(2) after "three" insert "working".
This Standing Order deals with the Committee Stage, and we have proposed to amend it. Standing Orders allow Committees 30 calendar days for the consideration of Bills referred to them. As such a period excludes adjournments of longer than three days, the referral period could take 15 weeks to elapse, as Standing Order 31(2) takes no account of weekends. This was surely not the intention of the original Standing Orders Committee, and the proposed amendment would address this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
In Standing Order 31(2) after "three" insert "working".
Resolved:
After Standing Order 34 insert the following new Standing Order:
"34(A) PUBLIC BILLS: FURTHER CONSIDERATION STAGE
(1) When a Bill has passed Consideration Stage and stands referred to the Speaker, the terms of Standing Order 34 shall be applied to the Further Consideration Stage as they would to a Consideration Stage as described in Standing Order 34.
(2) Members may speak more than once in debate during the Further Consideration Stage.
(3) At the completion of the Further Consideration Stage the Bill shall stand referred to the Speaker."
As a consequence, amend Standing Orders 33(14), (15) and (16) and 36(1): in each case, before "Consideration" insert "Further". — [Mr C Murphy]
Mr C Murphy: I beg to move the following motion:
In Standing Order 39(1) delete "seven" and insert "five working", and delete "(excluding Saturdays and Sundays)".
Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. This deals with the stages between Bills, and the current wording of the Standing Order has the effect of necessitating effectively two weeks between stages in the passage of a Bill. This reworded version will allow stages to pass with an interval of one week between each. However, Members should be aware that this is not prescriptive. It is possible to have a longer interval if that is required.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
In Standing Order 39(1) delete "seven" and insert "five working", and delete "(excluding Saturdays and Sundays)".
Mr C Murphy:
I beg to move the following motion:
In Standing Order 46(9) delete "a majority of the Members present and voting" and insert "simple majority. Voting".
Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. This deals with voting in Committees. The present wording in the Standing Orders is ambiguous. In some circumstances, Members who are present and abstain would have the effect of voting against any motion. For example, with nine Members present and four voting "Yes", three "No" and two abstaining, the motion would fall, as the "Yes" votes would not represent the majority of those present.
This motion corrects the text to reflect the Committee’s understanding of the original intention of the Committee on Standing Orders.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
In Standing Order 46(9) delete "a majority of the Members present and voting" and insert "simple majority. Voting".
Mr C Murphy:
I beg to move the following motion:
After Standing Order 53(6) add "(7) The Business Committee shall determine the dates of recess".
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Recess is mentioned throughout Standing Orders, and the convention until now has been that the Business Committee determines the dates of the recess. This is merely to provide a formal mechanism to determine those dates.
Mr Leslie:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The copy of the Standing Orders to which I am referring — I have just obtained it from the Printed Paper Office — goes only as far as 53(4).
Mr Speaker:
The reason for that is that there has been no reprint since the last amendments were made to Standing Orders. The printed copy that the Member has is out of date. If he wants an up-to-date copy with the correct numbers, he should download it from the Internet and print it out. I must also point out to the House that at the start of this process it was agreed that it would be appropriate for the Procedures Committee to make necessary grammatical, punctuation and other corrections — numbering, of course, is one of the corrections that can be made. For this and for other matters I remind Members that the most up-to-date documents, including Hansard, can be found and downloaded from the Internet site.
Mr Dodds:
With regard to this proposal, as I understand it there is no provision at the moment in Standing Orders giving powers to the Business Committee, or indeed anybody else, to determine the recess. What basis are we operating on if the recess begins on 7 July 2000?
Mr Speaker:
Under convention.
Mr Dodds:
Is that legally watertight?
Mr Speaker:
It does not take long for matters to become traditional and conventional in this setting.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
After Standing Order 53(6) add "(7) The Business Committee shall detemine the dates of recess".
Mr C Murphy:
I beg to move the following motion:
In the Interpretation delete line 4 and insert "Sitting days are all days Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays and recess".
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. There was some confusion among Members as to when the Assembly was actually sitting; was it sitting only during plenary or was it also sitting during Committee? The Procedures Committee felt that the simplest approach was to define all days from Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays and recess, as sitting days of the Assembly. We propose to put this into the Interpretation at the back of the Standing Orders. I am also grateful to the Member for the amendment to this motion which tidies it up. I support the amendment.
Amendment made: After "line 4" insert "and line 5". — [Mr Morrow]
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
In the Interpretation delete line 4 and line 5 and insert "Sitting Days are all days Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays and recess".
Mr Speaker:
Before we leave Standing Orders, may I remind the House that it is out of order for anyone to have mobile telephones in ringing mode, as is the carrying in of packages, briefcases or other items of that kind.
Mr Fee:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When will the amended Standing Orders be printed and available?
Mr Speaker:
They will be printed over the recess and will be available to Members on the commencement of the new session in September. Given the motion that the House passed earlier, the intention is to reprint Standing Orders each year during the summer recess.
The hard working Business Committee thought that you might take longer to get through this business and allocated more time to it.
Mr J Kelly:
On a point of order, A Cheann Comhairle. Can you define "package" for us?
Mr Speaker:
The only packages that I am in a position to preside over are pension packages, which you voted on some time ago.
The sitting was suspended at 11.28 am.
On resuming —
Exclusion of Sinn Féin
2.00 pm
Mr Speaker:
I want to remind Members of the timings allowed for this debate. Dr Paisley will be entitled to up to one hour to move the motion, and a Member of Sinn Féin will be permitted up to one hour to respond. Following this, the Floor will be opened up to any Member who will be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes. When all Members who wish to speak have done so, or the arguments have been exhaustively presented, I will allow a Member of Sinn Féin up to 30 minutes to respond, and either of the proposers —Dr Paisley and Mr Robinson —30 minutes to wind up.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
I beg to move
That, in consequence of the failure of the Provisional IRA to offer up its illegal weaponry for destruction, its continuing threat, and pursuit, of terrorist outrages to secure its aims, its maintenance of an active terrorist organisation, its continuing engagement in murder and other acts of violence, and the fact that it is inextricably linked to Sinn Féin, this Assembly resolves that Sinn Féin does not enjoy its confidence because it is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means, and further, in accordance with section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, determines that members of Sinn Féin shall be excluded from holding office as Ministers for a period of 12 months from the date of this resolution.
Last Friday evening I attended the Lord Mayor’s installation dinner in the city hall. A speech was made by Mrs Pearl Marshall, the mother of a police officer who was brutally gunned down and murdered by the IRA. During her speech Mrs Marshall asked a question that is central to this debate: "How can those who did these evil deeds be in Government without saying ‘Sorry’ and without bringing forth the fruits of repentance?". This is a question that is upon the lips of every decent person in this Province. How can the front leaders of armed terrorists have a place in democratic Government? Who would have thought that the day would ever come when this House would have to debate whether there is a place for armed terrorists in the Government of Northern Ireland?
It is a sad indictment of this institution that after two years, today is the first opportunity we have had to debate this crucial issue. This is a matter that goes to the heart of the establishment of Government in Northern Ireland, and yet it is being debated only now. Every trick in the book has been used to prevent this debate, but those attempts have failed, and we are having a debate that the enemies of democracy attempted to prevent.
Today we are told that many will boycott this debate. This Assembly meets against the background of disturbances over the denial of the right of Orangemen to return from their church service to their homes.
The root cause of these disturbances goes to the very heart of the question that we are discussing today. Who planned these disturbances? Who organised them, and who is responsible for the violence that initiated them? The answer is IRA/Sinn Feín. It was Mr Gerry Adams who declared on RTE
"Ask any activist in the North, did Drumcree happen by accident, and they will tell you no. Three years of work on the lower Ormeau Road, Portadown, in parts of Fermanagh and Newry, Armagh and in Bellaghy and up in Derry. These three years work went into creating that situation. Fair play to those people who have put the work in. These are the types of scene changes that we have to focus in on and develop and exploit."
Sinn Feín/IRA has deliberately orchestrated communal tension in Northern Ireland. They have used violence, and the threat of violence, to stir up violence around the issue of parades. This violence in the communities across our Province has held the people to ransom for the last five years. Northern Ireland has been changed, brutalised and defaced by this orchestrated violence and all the threats associated with it. The people of Northern Ireland have been wrongly blamed for this violence. The people are being punished because of the violence and threat of violence by the IRA. The Orange Order is being publicly punished and abused because of this deliberate violence by the IRA.
This Assembly and Government was created on the basis of a number of key promises made in the handwriting of the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. The House will recall that he visited the Province during the debate on the referenda on the Belfast Agreement. At Coleraine, he made a number of personal pledges to the Unionist people concerning the interpretation of the meaning of the Belfast Agreement. The consistent feature of Tony Blair’s involvement in the referenda debate was one of "promises making" which resulted in "promises breaking." Could I remind the House that the Prime Minister said that those who use or threaten violence shall be excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland. Writing in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ on 22 May, he said
"I give my word, and I will keep it. There will be no fudge between democracy and terror. Only those who have given up violence for good can play a part in the democratic future of Northern Ireland."
What have the people of Ulster done to deserve such a despicable act of treachery from the Prime Minister? Why does he insist on turning the principles of democracy on their head in order to accommodate organised murderous thuggery? Have the vast majority of the people of this Province been unfaithful? Have they been lawbreakers? Have they been disloyal? Have they spoken treachery? Loyal people of Ulster do not deserve this treatment. They have been loyal, true, upright and law abiding. For three decades many of them have suffered the most serious woundings and bereavements. They have also suffered the most vicious Republican violence and the lying propaganda that goes with it. They have not retaliated. All they have asked for are equal rights, equal treatment and equal freedom. Today we are to see democracy destroyed, our freedom spoiled and our rights denied.
The power of the IRA has now become a legitimate tool in the Executive of our country. Ministers will not rely on mandates but on murderers who are armed and ready to kill. It will not have gone unnoticed in the House that a Member representing the East Londonderry constituency has today put her name to this motion on the exclusion of IRA/Sinn Féin. I would like to thank Pauline Armitage for that.
This is not just a DUP motion — examine the signatures. All the Unionist parties in the House have put their names to it, including some who are members of the Official Unionist Party. Indeed, I thank all those Members from a broad spectrum of Unionism who are supporting this motion. We are sending out a certain and united voice across this Province that we love: on this great issue of whether those representing terrorists in Northern Ireland should be in or out of government there are more Unionists elected to the House who say "No — they should not be in the Government of Northern Ireland" then say they should.
If the boot were on the other foot, if the Nationalist community were so divided and, indeed, if a majority of its elected representatives were to voice its opposition to the operation of such a political process we all know that the Government would listen and respond to it and bow to the wishes of the majority. I expect any democratic Government sitting in the Mother of Parliaments to listen to the majority of Unionists this day. I appeal to them no matter what way this vote goes to listen to the majority of Unionists. Northern Ireland can never be at ease with itself when the majority community is so uneasy about the operation of the political institutions. That is a fact that they must face up to. I know that the Government want to close their eyes to it.
The last time I spoke to the Prime Minister he had the brazen audacity to tell me that he had broken none of his pledges. I read them over to him, and he still maintained that he had broken none of them. A Prime Minister who can say that to an elected representative from Northern Ireland would say anything. The Government can and, indeed, today will blacken the name of us who take a stand this day in the House, but they do that at their peril.
They should realise that there is a scurry across Ulster, a massive resistance and resentment to the operation of a process that insults our honoured dead and pours scorn on the very principles of the democratic process.
2.15 pm
Today is a defining moment, not only in the Assembly, but for the Unionist people and democracy itself. Does this Assembly want Northern Ireland to be plagued forever with the scourge of terrorists at the heart of its Government, conning itself that some form of words or some sleight of hand will be enough to convince people that the decommissioning issue has been satisfactorily addressed?
The Official Unionists’ defence spokesman has said he is satisfied with what has happened with the IRA bunkers. Think of it — the bunkers have now been given special status, immune from search by the authorities in charge of the security of the country in which they are, and Unionism’s spokesman is saying that those bunkers’ being firmly under IRA control satisfies him on the question of decommissioning.
Today is decision day for the Assembly. To Unionist representatives, I say that their actions today will be interpreted farther afield than in this Chamber. They will find no hiding place. Abstention is not an option; they will have to vote for or against this motion, or else explain to the Ulster people their reluctance to do so. Today the hour to be counted has come.
I refer to the motion and remind the House that
"this Assembly resolves that Sinn Féin does not enjoy its confidence because it is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means".
If you do not vote for that, what are you saying? You are saying the Assembly does indeed give its confidence to IRA/Sinn Féin and believes it to be committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means. Today there is no room for neutrality in this struggle.
There is only one way for Unionists to register opposition to having the representatives of armed terror in Government, and that is to vote for this exclusion motion. Failing to do so, whether by abstention or by voting against, will send a clear message to the Unionist community that those Unionists led by Mr Trimble support Sinn Féin/IRA’s being in the Government of Northern Ireland. There will never be a clearer choice between terrorism and democracy, and there will never be a better chance in the history of this Province for us to register our views. Those Unionists who fail to support this motion can expect to face the wrath of an outraged Unionist community at the next election. This is a straightforward issue.
Do Unionists want to go on sharing power with an organisation which retains its terror capability and is at the moment directly engaged in terrorism?
The IRA has not finished its terror. No truer words were spoken than those of Gerry Adams at the City Hall:
"They haven’t gone away, you know."
There are those today who bear awful witness to that awful fact. There is no doubt that the IRA continues its terror though every effort is made to disguise what is going on, and there is a failure on the part of the media and the security forces to tell and rightly catalogue the ravages of terror.
I was talking to a security force man recently who told me that every night he takes his men out they are petrol bombed in Republican areas. These incidents never reach the press. The democratic process is diminished and treated with contempt by those who hold the very views that I am putting in the House today. Some of the people who hold these views talked not so long ago about no half-way house between Government and being engaged in terrorism, but now they have somersaulted. During the talks it was Dick Spring, the then Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic, who said that Sinn Féin/IRA could not be in Government by day and in terror by night.
The Deputy First Minister, who has just left the Chamber, announced at a recent party conference that he would "take on" the men of violence if they dared to think that they could have terror and democracy together, and he threatened what he would do with those who continued to be engaged in terrorism. Those were great words. They sounded well, but they have all been proved to be useless and as worthless as the promises of the Prime Minister.
The Nationalists’ representatives here have a duty to the wider public as well. They can stick with their close relationship with IRA/Sinn Féin. The SDLP can keep the IRA in Government if that is what its members wish. But just let them stop and ask themselves what sort of message that sends to the Unionist people. Their support for IRA/Sinn Féin fuels the view that the SDLP has advanced on the back of IRA terror and is now so inextricably linked to that organisation that they cannot free themselves or act independently of it. If the SDLP Members have genuine concern, as they tell us they have, for the Unionist people, for their neighbours and for the democratic process, they would surely exclude Republican terrorist representatives from Government.
We are told that this debate is taking place in the shadow of our glorious political development. That is the latest IRA statement. The searching of secret IRA arms dumps by international observers is nothing more than a worthless stunt, a further attempt to gull the community and present mass killers as peacemakers. What does that latest IRA statement reveal?
First, it reveals that the IRA possesses a lot of illegal weapons. Secondly, they are under the total control of the IRA. Thirdly, two people, one of whom spoke at an IRA rally in west Belfast, have been allowed to see a small portion of these weapons but are unable to reveal their location. Does this build up any confidence at all in the right-thinking people of this Province, having experienced in their own bodies and their homes the violence of those who control these bunkers? The concerns of the community I represent need to be assuaged, and these bunkers do nothing to convince me, or my constituents, that we should put confidence in the IRA’s good intentions.
Mr Coulter and Mr Leslie, Official Unionist Members of the Assembly, sent a letter to council delegates:
"We believe the commitment by the IRA to put arms beyond use."
"We believe" it, they said.
"The IRA statement contains a much stronger commitment to decommission than anything said by the IRA or their Sinn Féin mouthpiece."
I am amazed, considering where these gentlemen live. How can they breathe good north Antrim fresh air and still make such a statement? It is up to the Ulster Unionist Party to keep the pressure on them until they have completed the transition from terrorism to peace and democracy.
However, there is an admission here that they have not. They are not even on the road to peace and democracy. If they were, would they want bunkers or to retain their murder weapons and arsenals? Here we have an admission that an undemocratic party is in government; that the purpose of being in government is to achieve a change of heart. They are saying "We must work and put pressure on them to convert them, but we will give them the prize of office first and then we can buy them into democracy." This is rewarding Sinn Féin before they deserve, or are entitled to, such an award. This is simply blackmail.
IRA/Sinn Féin do not deserve to be in government. They must change and, if they say and continue to say "We are not changing", then they must be rejected by all constitutionalists and by all who believe in democracy. It is not up to the democratic process to change all the rules in the book in order to accommodate terrorists. It is up to the terrorists to stop their terrorising, to give up the means of terror, to be like any other party.
Sinn Féin’s failure to follow these rules makes their place in the Government totally unacceptable. No amount of explaining or defining by the Ulster Unionist Party can change the reality of the stark fact that a fully armed terrorist organisation that pays lip-service to non-violent commitments is in the Government of Northern Ireland. That is immoral and a stop should be put to it.
2.30 pm
The attitude of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to this is amazing. The Deputy First Minister castigated my Friend yesterday for daring to ask a question. Yet the Minister of the Environment asked a question of Ministers on the other side, and nothing was said. And what about the IRA/Sinn Féin Ministers in the Executive? Did the Deputy First Minister stand up and rebuke them for their attitude to our national flag? Did he get up and denounce Mr McGuinness, who said that he would not tell the people who knew who carried out the Omagh bombing to tell the police? I did not hear any loud calls from either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister, about that, none whatsoever. Yet they rebuked my Colleague because he asked simple question that he was entitled to ask. Even you, Sir, who have full control of the House and how it operates, admitted that, and admitted it freely.
There is no doubt that the IRA continues its crimes, and it is for this reason that its alter ego, Sinn Féin, cannot be permitted to continue in the Government. The crime that it is engaged in is not some minor petty crime that will soon wither on the vine. The IRA continues to be the most sophisticated and ruthless terror organisation in Europe and the western world. It is continually engaged in attacks in Northern Ireland. It possesses a massive weapons arsenal, part of which is now internationally protected, and it has international criminal links.
Currently, in the United States, a former FBI agent is on trial for supplying the IRA with weapons, over seven tonnes of them. If it is keen on decommissioning, what is it doing ordering seven tonnes of weapons in the United States of America? The IRA has not disbanded and has no intention of disbanding. The IRA exists because of the power of the gun. Members in the House who represent the IRA are here because of the power of the guns. It was not the ballot box that brought them, but the power of the gun behind the ballot box, the intimidation of voters, the printing of health cards and so on as was quite evident, and admitted by the Chief Electoral Officer when, at the last parliamentary election, one of their candidates was elected for Mid Ulster.
I have attended meetings with the Secretary of State, as have representatives from other parties, including the SDLP, and pointed out the breaches in electoral law. Has anything been done about it? Not a thing. I was told the other day by the Secretary of State that nothing would be done. The election to Westminster will go on under the same rules - nothing to be done. As I have said, the IRA has not disbanded and has no intention of disbanding. It exists because of the power of the gun, and it knows that if that power were taken away, it would be extinguished. That is why the Belfast Agreement got it wrong - it failed to realise that IRA/Sinn Féin is not like any other political party.
Today we have to decide, if we are going to continue to pull the wool over the people's eyes, and continue with the lie that Sinn Féin/IRA Members are just like the rest of us when, in reality, they are terrorists, and terrorists continuing the job of terrorism. The IRA continues to be responsible for the most savage so-called punishment beatings taking place across Northern Ireland.
Since the start of this year, the IRA has shot 21 people and beaten 25 people in Northern Ireland. It is an organisation on cease-fire, whose arms, we are told have been put beyond use. Tell that to the victims of the IRA. The IRA has failed to offer up its illegal weaponry for destruction. It is a continuing threat in its pursuit of terrorist outrages to secure its aims as a terrorist organisation. Its continuing engagement in murder and other acts of violence, and its links to Sinn Féin, mean that Sinn Féin cannot enjoy the confidence of this House.
Let us examine what Sinn Féin/IRA has been doing at night, while Martin McGuinness and Barbara Brown are Ministers by day. Let me list what has happened this year.
Mr M McGuinness:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have noticed that every now and again Rev William McCrea holds up a small poster of me. I wonder whether it is an attempt to have himself elevated to the position of Cardinal by the DUP Pope in time for the south-west Antrim by-election?
Mr Speaker:
I again draw the attention of the House to my ruling. Aids of various kinds have been used in the Chamber from time to time, but they are all out of order. No aids, other than notes, may be used.
Mr Dodds:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might be appropriate to point out to the so-called Minister of Education that the constituency is called south Antrim, not south-west Antrim. Can he get it right?
Mr McNamee:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I point out that Mr McGuinness is not the so-called Minister of Education; he is indeed the Minister of Education.
Mr Speaker:
He certainly is. Of that there is no doubt. Dr Paisley, please continue.