Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 14 September 1998
Contents
Assembly: Ad Hoc Committee on Procedural Consequences of Devolution
Interim Report of First Minister (Designate) and Deputy
The Assembly met at 10.30 am (The Initial Presiding Officer (The Lord Alderdice of Knock) in the Chair).
The Initial Presiding Officer:
The House is aware that, under the terms of Initial Standing Order 5(1), two minutes’ silence is to be observed at the beginning of each day’s business, and Members may spend this period in personal prayer or meditation. As this is the first sitting of the Assembly since 1 July I propose — by leave of the Assembly — that we stand for the period of reflection and that we extend it to four minutes in memory of those who since we last met have had their lives so brutally and tragically taken from them and in sympathy with the bereaved and the injured.
Will Members please stand.
Members observed four minutes’ silence.
Presiding Officer’s Business
The Initial Presiding Officer:
In view of the mandates given by the House on 1 July 1998 that reports be presented by the First and Deputy First Minister(s) (Designate) and by the Committee on Standing Orders by this date, I wrote to the Secretary of State advising her of the necessity for a sitting of the Assembly. I have received the following letter from Mr Paul Murphy, the Minister of State, on her behalf:
"Thank you for your letter of 7 September addressed to … [the Secretary of State], who, as you know, is presently on leave.
By virtue of paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 it falls to the Secretary of State to determine where meetings of the Assembly shall be held, and when.
In the light of your indication of the wishes of Assembly Members, the Secretary of State hereby directs that the Assembly shall meet at Parliament Buildings, Stormont at 10.30 am on Monday 14 September until 6.00 pm on Wednesday 30 September.
The Secretary of State will consider making a further direction as respects this period, in particular in the light of any indications she receives as to the wishes of Assembly Members after the Assembly has begun to meet."
Before we proceed, it is only right for the Assembly to recognise that an extraordinary amount of work has been done by its staff, by various contractors and, indeed, by others outside. Members will know that some staff have worked exceptionally diligently, often over weekends and far into the night. By leave of the Assembly I ask that our appreciation be conveyed, through the Deputy Clerk, to all concerned.
Mr Maskey:
I would like to address you as "Cathaoirleach", which is the Irish for "Chairperson".
First, the British Secretary of State has, of course, designated Parliament Buildings as the location for the Assembly. We shall return to this matter in due course, for we have a number of concerns.
Secondly, the Agreement provides for and encourages the promotion of the Irish language, among others. Therefore the provision of simultaneous translation facilities is another matter to which we shall return in due course.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
It is for the Assembly to decide where to meet after what is described in the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 as the appointed day — the day on which power is devolved. The Assembly is entirely at liberty to have discussions and to make its own decisions. I wish simply, without prejudice, to express appreciation to those staff who have worked extremely hard to ensure that we are provided with facilities for the present.
The question of the Irish language and Ulster Scots was raised at the last sitting and in the interim. We have made arrangements for the transcription — translation could not be arranged at this stage — of Irish and Ulster Scots in the Official Report.
A Civil Service trawl has not resulted in our obtaining competent transcribers, so we will have to advertise outside the Service. That matter is proceeding, but in the meantime appropriate arrangements have been made to ensure that Assembly business is properly recorded.
Simultaneous translation is an entirely different matter, which the Assembly will need to discuss later. I have not yet taken action in that regard.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Can it be made clear to Members that if they choose to speak in a language not known by all Members, that will be included in their time? They cannot speak in a language unknown to some Members and then have additional time to speak in English.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I am happy to repeat what I said previously and to affirm that what Dr Paisley says is correct. The amount of time that Members have is not altered by the language in which they speak. I have already requested that Members using a language other than English translate for the sake of other Members.
Ms de Brún:
Ag leanstan ar aghaidh uaidh sin, sílim go bhfuil sé go hiomlán cothrom dá má rud é go bhfuil mise ag labhairt i nGaeilge, nó duine ar bith eile ag labhairt i nGaeilge, go bhfuil an t-am ceannann céanna agamsa agus atá ag gach aon duine eile. Ach, má tá mé ag tabhairt aistriúcháin do dhaoine eile — [Interruption]
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Order.
Ms de Brún:
— ba chóir go mbeadh breis ama agam leis an aistriúchán sin a chur ar fáil.
If I or any other Member wishes to speak in Irish it is only right that we be given the same amount of time as someone speaking in any other language. If, for the benefit of other Members, in the absence of a translation system, I have to spend time saying in English what I have said in Irish, that time must be separate. If I am asked to provide such a service for Members who do not speak Irish, but am not given extra time to do so, I will not have the same speaking time as others.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I appreciate your view, but the decision as to what facilities are available still rests with the Secretary of State. It is not yet the decision of the Assembly. When the Assembly has power to make its own decisions — for example, when and how to meet — it can address this matter. When one speaks, it is not only for the benefit of one’s listeners but, given that one is trying to communicate with others, also for one’s own benefit to make oneself understood. Therefore translation is equally important to the person speaking and to those listening. Thus I appeal to Members to be courteous to each other by making themselves understandable.
The question Mrs de Brún raises is, in effect, that of simultaneous translation — something which will have to be debated by the Assembly. At this stage I have given the only ruling that I think proper.
Mr C Wilson:
I believe that it is the view of the majority of Members that this is a huge waste of Assembly time and of taxpayers’ money. Everyone in this Chamber is perfectly capable of addressing Members in English and being understood fully. I have placed my concerns with you, Mr Presiding Officer, and the Business Committee and will continue to take that position.
Mr Maskey:
I wanted to draw attention to two issues to which we will return. Mr Wilson certainly does not speak on behalf of a majority of Members.
10.45 am
The Initial Presiding Officer:
As regards expenditure, members of the Hansard staff employed to transcribe Irish or Ulster-Scots will also be doing the normal editing in English. The Assembly will return to this matter. I wish simply to make a ruling until it can be considered more fully.
Ms Rodgers:
The best way to resolve the matter is for a translation service to be provided as soon as possible so that Members can speak in whatever language they choose. As has been said, the Agreement gives equality of esteem to both languages and, indeed, to Ullans.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
This is undoubtedly a matter on which the Assembly will wish to consult, but those who want to pursue it in the meantime should remember that decisions about the facilities and funding to be made available to us are currently the prerogative of the Secretary of State. Anyone wishing to raise such an issue should do so with her.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
There has been much comment in the press about the facilities in the House. I wonder why nothing has been said about the elaborate bar that is being provided in the basement. That is very strange. In the society in which I was brought up, people would say
"A bar to him and a door to hell.
Whoever named it named it well."
Maybe for those reasons they did not want to name it, but it ill becomes the press to pass judgement on others when they are not prepared to judge themselves.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
The Member will be aware that in other places refreshment facilities of that kind have particular names. He may be interested to know that when a straw poll on what that establishment might be called was taken, it was suggested that "Place of the Devil’s Buttermilk" would be very suitable.
Mr Shannon:
Heich Convenor, those of us in the Chamber who would like to use the Ulster Scots language are quite happy to have the time for translation included in our 10-minute allocation. I hope that other Members will adopt the same approach.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Members will be aware that the Committee on Standing Orders has commented on the draft Additional Standing Orders which the Secretary of State was of a mind to implement today. I have been advised by the Joint Chairmen of the Committee that a response has now been received from the Minister of State indicating that the making of Additional Standing Orders will be deferred until the Assembly has completed its consideration of the interim report from the Committee on Standing Orders later today in case any more points arise in the debate. With the agreement of the Joint Chairmen, copies of the Minister’s response have been left in Members’ pigeon-holes on the second floor.
I would like to remind Members of the Assembly, members of the press and others that, under paragraph 8 of the schedule to the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, the privilege given to Members speaking in the House is qualified. It is not the absolute privilege which pertains in other assemblies and which will apply here when the Assembly takes power on the appointed day as set out in the Act. The relevant provision says
"A written or oral statement made by a Member in or for the purposes of the Assembly (or any Committee it may establish) shall be privileged from action for defamation unless it is proved to have been made with malice."
I have discussed this matter with the Government. It is currently under consideration.
With regard to the debate on the interim report from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), background-material papers have been placed in the Library, and additional copies are available on request. These are obtainable in Room 8.
Mr P Robinson:
It seems quite inappropriate for the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to produce a report and simply table it for Members. As the report is devoid of substance, that is not a problem today. If there were some substance — for instance, a proposal capable of amendment — we would need more time to deal with it. On this occasion, however, it is not a problem.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
You are quite right to draw attention to the procedural question of how far in advance Members need to have sight of reports and other papers. It is generally appreciated that reports should not be widely distributed before they are presented in the Assembly. The Assembly has the right to see them before others do, although in other places Front-Bench spokesmen are often given sight of material shortly — perhaps an hour or so — before it is presented. Whether this should be considered by the Standing Orders Committee, or whether it is a matter of a convention to be understood by Whips’ offices or others, is something for the Assembly to decide.
When Assembly Members sign the Roll they register a designation — "Unionist", "Nationalist" or "Other". It is also the practice to give the name of the party to which they belong. Members will know from the draft Standing Orders that the Secretary of State also wishes to establish a register of political parties. At this juncture there is no Standing Order dealing with the question of those who wish to identify themselves as belonging to a political party other than the one for which they stood in the election.
I have received from Mr Agnew, Mr Douglas and Mr Watson a note saying that, following discussion, they have agreed to form a United Unionist Assembly Party, with Mr Watson as Leader. There is no Standing Order under which to give a ruling, or to assist with giving a ruling, on how they should now be treated. The nearest Standing Order is the one dealing with the signing of the Roll and the registering of a designation. Seven days’ notice of any change of designation is required.
I have discussed this with the parties, and it has been accepted that, in the absence of a new Standing Order which would clarify the matter, we should apply the seven days’ written notice Rule. The party will therefore be formally recognised in seven days’ time, and any arrangements in respect of it will become substantive then.
Assembly:
Roll of Members
The Initial Presiding Officer:
As not all Members were present on 1 July, some have not signed the Roll. I invite those who have yet to do so to sign the Roll and to register the designation of identity required by the Initial Standing Orders.
The following Members signed the Roll: Frazer Agnew, Sue Ramsey, Pat Doherty.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I have examined the three signatures and designations, and all appear to be in order.
Assembly:
"Shadow" Commission
Motion made:
That this Assembly should proceed to establish a "Shadow" Commission to assist during the transitional period in making preparations for the effective functioning of the Assembly – the membership and functions of the "Shadow" Commission being the same as those set out for the Commission in the Northern Ireland Bill.
Terms of Reference:
The "Shadow" Commission will consider matters relevant to providing the Assembly with the property, staff and services required for the Assembly’s purposes.
Composition: Initial Presiding Officer
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr John Fee
Mr Peter Robinson MP
Mr Francie Molloy
Mrs Eileen Bell
Quorum:
The Commission will decide its quorum at the first meeting.
— [The Initial Presiding Officer]
The Initial Presiding Officer:
The Northern Ireland Bill, like other Bills of a similar nature, provides for the establishment of a body corporate to take responsibility for all legal matters relevant to the Assembly, for the provision of property, staff, services and financial arrangements for Members and for other such matters.
Given that the Commission will take full responsibility for these matters on the appointed day, and given that in respect of all other matters shadow arrangements have been made in order that Assembly Members may read themselves into their responsibilities, it is proposed that the Commission be established on the same basis and with the same numbers and arrangements as provided for in the Act during the period of the shadow Assembly.
11.00 am
I want to emphasise one or two things. First, the number of Members was to be five, but I have been advised that some of the smaller parties are not content with this. Representations on the matter will need to be made to the Secretary of State. It is possible for the number to be increased, but that will be a matter for the Secretary of State. Anyway, there is no guarantee that places would be taken up by any particular party. It is a matter for the Assembly
Secondly, Members will notice that some aspects of the motion are definite — for example, in respect of composition — and others are less so. The item "Quorum", to which we need to refer under the Initial Standing Orders, states that the Commission will decide its quorum at the first meeting. The reason for this lack of definition is that in the Act it is left to the substantive Commission to decide its own quorum. Should the Assembly wish to give guidance to the shadow Commission, that, I am sure, would not be inappropriate. The motion simply follows closely the matters set out in the Act.
Thirdly, I should emphasise that these appointments are to the shadow Assembly Commission and will be in force only for the shadow period. There will need to be a new resolution — possibly with changes in the membership, and so on — for the substantive Commission.
Mr Molloy:
I welcome the setting up of the Commission, for it is a very important body. It is important that there be transparency in dealings about property, staff and services. We should also ensure that there is equality of employment. We must deal with the whole issue of fair employment in the Civil Service. It is important that the Commission be set up now and that its work proceed as quickly as possible.
Mr Foster:
With regard to services and property, there is an issue which concerns me. During the presidential visit the Union flag was not flown on this Building. Nor was the Stars and Stripes. Surely that would have been correct protocol. It was an insult to the sovereignty of this state and against the Belfast Agreement.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
The visit was under the auspices of the Government, who still have control of the Building. I understand that protocol advice was taken and was followed.
Management of the Building will come under the auspices of the Commission after the devolution of power. Some aspects of the running of the estate will stay in other hands, unless it is decided to change the arrangements.
Responsibility for the way in which matters are dealt with within the Building will be shared by the Commission, Assembly Members and the Executive — the First and Deputy First Ministers already occupy some parts of the Building — and there will need to be some discussion and negotiation. It would be valuable to have a shadow Commission to explore these matters before power is devolved.
Mr Adams:
Tá pointe amháin ar an ábhar seo agus is ábhar an-tábhachtach é, ábhar na mbratach.
I want to draw attention a Chathaoirligh to the Good Friday Agreement and the issue of flags. In paragraph 5 of the section headed "Economic, Social and Cultural Issues" the Agreement says
"All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division."
That is very important. I appreciate — indeed, Sinn Fein appreciates — that there are citizens here who value the Union flag, but we do not. There must be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity. We need to move into a new situation in which, with the agreement in mind, the Irish national flag is given parity with the Union flag.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I am not sure of the protocol followed by the Government, but I think that it is very doubtful. Usually the flags of both countries are flown on certain occasions, but I am not at all surprised at what the Member has said, for Her Majesty’s Lord Lieutenants were also snubbed during the visit of the President. What is more, the President’s helicopter would not land in the Army barracks at Armagh. It was said that that could offend the Irish Republican Army and damage the peace process. Special arrangements had to be made.
These are serious matters, and I do not think anyone on this side of the House would interpret what has been said by the Leader of IRA/Sinn Fein as meaning that the Union flag should not be flown. There is no such thing in the agreement, and it would be ridiculous to say that the national flag could not be flown on a building of this nature.
Perhaps you would also clarify whether the grounds and the Building will come under the auspices of the Commission.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
May I prevail upon Members to try to keep to the business motion, as, indeed, Dr Paisley has just done. As I understand it, the current state of affairs is that this Building will come under the auspices of the Assembly Commission, but not all parts of the estate. Some parts of the estate are likely to remain under the direct control of the Secretary of State. The Assembly will clearly want to discuss, and perhaps even negotiate, these matters. This emphasises the need for a "Shadow" body to enable Members to become clearer about certain issues in advance of taking power.
This is essentially a business motion to establish the Commission, and I urge Members not to stray into other matters, however important and ultimately relevant.
Mr J Kelly:
If terms like "Sinn Fein/IRA" are to be used, may other Members feel free to use terms like "DUP/LVF"?
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I am not sure that I am in a position to give rulings of the kind that you are inviting me to give.
Mr Taylor:
I fully support the motion to create a Commission, but I want to emphasise the necessity for it to direct its attention to the management not just of this Building but of all buildings and land within the Stormont Estate. Originally, under devolution, Stormont Castle was very much the seat of the Executive, and Stormont House was the seat of the then Speaker. I can understand that in recent years there has been a grey area, but when full devolution comes next year those who are currently in our premises must move to a more suitable location.
The Union flag is the national flag of the United Kingdom. The agreement which every party in this Building supported — [Interruption]
Mr Wells:
One or two people did not.
Mr Taylor:
The agreement was supported by several of those who have commented on the Union flag today. I want to emphasise that those who supported the agreement accepted the legitimacy of Northern Ireland’s being part of the United Kingdom. The flag of the United Kingdom is the Union flag, and there should be no debate or argument about that.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I assume that the shadow Assembly Commission will read the record of this debate and will consider all the matters that have been raised. Certainly that is my advice.
Rev William McCrea:
Mr Taylor may mock those who voted against this agreement, but the vast majority of the Unionist population did just that. Let it be made clear that some of us were to be murdered by the IRA and that Sinn Fein, as the political wing of that terrorist organisation, supported such action. People died to keep Ulster free as a part of the United Kingdom. This country has only one flag — the Union flag.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly should proceed to establish a "Shadow" Commission to assist during the transitional period in making preparations for the effective functioning of the Assembly – the membership and functions of the "Shadow" Commission being the same as those set out for the Commission in the Northern Ireland Bill.
Terms of Reference:
The Shadow Commission will consider matters relevant to providing the Assembly with the property, staff and services required for the Assembly’s purposes.
Composition: Initial Presiding Officer
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr John Fee
Mr Peter Robinson MP
Mr Francie Molloy
Mrs Eileen Bell
Quorum: The Commission will decide its quorum at the first meeting.
Assembly:
Ad Hoc Committee on Procedural Consequences of Devolution
Motion made:
That under the terms of Initial Standing Order 15 this Assembly appoints an ad hoc Committee to consider the procedural consequences of devolution as they are likely to affect the relationship between and workings of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament and, by Tuesday 6 October 1998, to submit a report to the Assembly which, if approved, will be forwarded to the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons.
| Composition: | UUP SDLP DUP SF Alliance UKUP PUP NIWC |
4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 |
| Quorum: | 8 |
— [The Initial Presiding Officer]
The Initial Presiding Officer:
By way of background I should explain that the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons is enquiring into the procedural consequences of devolution, including relationships with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Members of the House of Commons and parties represented there are, of course, free to make their own representations, and will undoubtedly do so, but the Assembly itself has been asked to make representations on the matter.
The House of Commons Procedure Committee has identified a number of detailed concerns on which comments are welcome, but has invited the response by 9 October. There have been discussions with all the parties on this matter, and there is a general view that the Assembly should take the opportunity to comment on these and any other related matters. Therefore the motion has been put on the Order Paper so that a response can be made to the Procedure Committee on or before 9 October.
Mr P Robinson:
My understanding is that the Committee has the maximum membership to which it is entitled under the Initial Standing Orders. However, there is no provision for representation from the United Unionist Party, which will be recognised fully in a week’s time. That party will have a greater claim to membership of the Committee than the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition or the Progressive Unionist Party and the Committee’s business will still be on-going when the United Unionist Party is fully recognised as a political party in this Assembly.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
What has been said is, in substance, true. When the Standing Orders Committee was established that Committee invited at an early stage an observer from those who were, and who are still described as Independent Members.
I should also add that a similar invitation was accepted in respect of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer.
11.15 am
Having advised the Assembly today that a new party will be recognised in seven days’ time, this matter must now be considered properly by the Committee on Standing Orders both on the question of recognition, about which I have made an interim ruling, and on the question of Committee compositions. The number of Members on Committees is at its maximum, and the Committee on Standing Orders may wish to advise the Assembly on this matter. It is proper that this Committee review the Assembly’s Standing Orders, and likewise the Whips should discuss the matter themselves and with the representative of the new party.
Mr Farren:
We are dealing here with the manner in which matters will be dealt with in this Assembly as opposed to Westminster. I therefore seek clarification about what is implied by "procedural consequences". I take it that these are distinct from "political consequences."
The Initial Presiding Officer:
My understanding is that the House of Commons Procedure Committee is looking at procedures at Westminster subsequent to devolution. It will not be giving guidance on how the Assembly should deal with its procedures. In the past, in other political arrangements and when this Chamber was in use, there were certain conventions about what could and could not be done. With the expansion of devolution, and in these different circumstances, more than mere conventions may be required. There are also issues about how the House of Commons would address some of these matters such as the membership of Committees. Of course, we now also have the question of Europe and its relationship with Westminster. However, it is not an examination of our procedures so much as an examination of the procedures that Westminster may wish to make changes to having invited our comments.
Mr P Robinson:
If you have made a ruling on this, then I am not quite sure what it is. I asked about the position of the prospective United Unionist Assembly Party. Are you saying that the Committee on Standing Orders should give an early report on that matter before it reports in full on 26 October? A lot of water may have flowed under the bridge by that date.
In relation to this Committee’s role, the House of Commons is looking at the impact of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the procedures of the House. For instance, will a Minister responsible to the United Kingdom Parliament be answerable for matters that are the responsibility of this elected body? Will he answer questions in Parliament on Northern Ireland, questions relating to environment, health and education? Will written answers come from prospective Ministers in this Assembly? Will a Select Committee for Northern Ireland have the right to look at matters which have been delegated to the Assembly in Northern Ireland?
Those are issues that this Committee will look at. It will also look at the famed West Lothian question — whether representatives who have no right in the House of Commons to amend legislation for Northern Ireland should see the legislation for their part of the United Kingdom amended by Northern Ireland Members.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
It is not for me to tell the Committee on Standing Orders what to do or when to report. That would be entirely improper.
When the new party is recognised in seven days’ time, that will have consequences for the memberships of Committees because, under the current Standing Orders the Committees cannot increase the numbers of places. Any proposed changes will have to be considered by the Standing Orders Committee which could come back to the Assembly in advance of 26 October with a number of interim reports or reports on various issues and seek the Assembly’s backing for approval by the Secretary of State. However, it would be quite improper for me to give a directive to the Standing Orders Committee. It will conduct its own business.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
It may be of some advantage to members of that Committee, if it is established, to consider the reports presented by the Northern Ireland Forum on both Scottish and Welsh devolution.
Indeed, there is another procedural question which must be addressed and that is the relationship that this House is to have with the European Parliament. Some matters will be coming directly from Europe to the Floor of the House, and we will have to consider the procedural ramifications of that.
I hope that we will be able to report by 6 October. I note that one report has already been produced since 1 July. It is not a comprehensive report at all, and I hope that this Committee, when established, will be able to present a more detailed report and expedite its business much more efficiently.
Mr Dodds:
May I come back to the point about the United Unionist Assembly Party and its representation on this Committee? As a member of the Standing Orders Committee, and not wishing to add to the work of that Committee unnecessarily, I think that the Initial Standing Orders are already clear on this point. We do not need clarification from the Standing Orders Committee, for Rule 15(2) says
"each party with at least two members shall have at least one seat on each Committee."
That will be the case from next Monday, so it is up to those in charge of administrative matters, rather than the Standing Orders Committee, to implement the Rule. The Rule also requires that there should be, as far as possible, a fair reflection of parties participating in the Assembly. Since there is an upper limit of 18 seats, amendments will have to be made simply to the balance of the parties on the Committee. It does not need any further consideration by the Standing Orders Committee.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
The reason that the Standing Orders Committee may wish to look at it, is the maximum number of members allowed, to which you referred. The Standing Orders Committee could, for example, decide to solve the problem by increasing the upper limit to 19 members, or by coming to some other arrangement, but it would be quite out of order for me to direct the Committee. The Standing Orders Committee should advise on this issue.
Mr Empey:
In the absence of a ruling on the total number, may I point out that there is already a report coming to the Assembly on 6 October about the House of Commons Procedure Committee. If we agree this motion it will not be necessary to wait until 26 October to have a report from the Standing Orders Committee to resolve these matters. It might be worthwhile suggesting to the Standing Orders Committee that it report on 6 October rather than waiting until 26 October.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
It would be out of order for me to propose that to the Standing Orders Committee, members of the Committee themselves or the joint Chairmen would be quite at liberty to do so.
Mr Haughey:
I am referring to the point made by Mr Dodds in respect of Rule 15(2) of the preliminary Standing Orders. The problem — and it is one that members of the Democratic Unionist Party raised in the Standing Orders Committee — is what precisely is to be understood by the word "party". That is a matter that the Standing Orders Committee will have to return to at the appointed time.
Mr P Robinson:
The Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer agreed that the proper course would be to recognise the new political party seven days after notice had been given; that issue is settled. So under the Initial Standing Orders that party will, as from next Monday, have an entitlement to one place on each Committee. However, if the composition of this Committee is as shown on the Order Paper there would be no place available since the Initial Standing Orders make it clear that the maximum membership is 18. Therefore the representation of one of the existing parties would need to be reduced by one.
The two parties that have the most representation per head are the Social Democratic and Labour Party and Sinn Fein. Their representation should be reduced by one to allow a Member from that Committee, the United Unionist Assembly Party, to be included.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
We should remember that the Committees were established not only by Standing Orders but also by a motion in the Assembly. The representation by party was fixed by an Assembly motion on 1 July 1998; I would be exceeding my authority were I to allow any changes to the membership of that Committee except by a further motion. Your proposition should more properly be made to the Standing Orders Committee or in a motion to the next meeting of the Assembly.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Is it not correct that the responsibility for these Initial Standing Orders lies with the Secretary of State? She imposed them, and we have had to accept them. That being the case, this is not a decision for the Standing Orders Committee of this House. The Secretary of State must decide. Surely you should be making representation to her, pointing out the inconsistency caused by the creation of this new party and suggesting that she agree to their being represented on the Committees.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I appreciate your analysis of the lines of authority, Dr Paisley, but I think it is not entirely correct. The authority under which these Standing Orders were put in place is, indeed, that of the Secretary of State. Any changes of any description to the Standing Orders between now and the devolution of power have to be authorised by the Secretary of State. However, the execution of those Standing Orders is a matter for the Assembly.
If the Secretary of State were not convinced that her wishes were being carried out she would, of course, be entirely at liberty to make that clear. She has already made clear her wish that any further Standing Orders which, as you quite rightly say, she would have to authorise, should be made, as far as possible, with the agreement of the Assembly. That is why — and I make this point on behalf of the Assembly — no new Standing Orders should be put in place until the Standing Orders Committee and, if possible, the Assembly as a whole has been consulted.
You will note that no new Standing Orders have been put in place yet prior to the initial Report of the Standing Orders Committee and today’s debate. I imagine that the Assembly will want those proprieties to continue to be recognised.
Mr Adams:
I note that none of the members of this new party have spoken for themselves although the Democratic Unionist Party is obviously concerned. These Members are anti-agreement, and they want to rejig the arithmetic. These three Members are clearly within the Unionist bloc, and should there be any pruning of the representation, then the parties losing a seat or seats should also be within the Unionist bloc, in keeping with the broad sense of this agreement.
11.30 am
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Our Rules are very important, and we abide by them no matter what our feelings. I will do my utmost as a servant of the Assembly to abide by the Rules, and where no such Rules exist I shall seek guidance from Members.
Mr P Robinson:
Clearly it is not a matter of taking representation from one bloc or another; it is a case of getting the fullest representation on the Committee. The arithmetic means that the Ulster Unionist Party has one representative for every seven Members, which is roughly the same as the Democratic Unionist Party. By contrast the Social Democratic and Labour Party and Sinn Fein each have one representative for every six Members, so very clearly it is one of those two parties that has to give up one of its Members. In that vein may I ask you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, to move an amendment to this motion?
The Initial Presiding Officer:
The Standing Orders state that all amendments must be received in writing at least one hour before the start of the day’s business. As I did not receive any amendments in advance of that time, I am unable to accept the Member’s suggestion.
Mr P Robinson:
You told us about this just a short time ago. How could we possibly have put down an amendment on something about which we were unaware?
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I am sorry, Mr Robinson. The Order Paper is quite clear about the membership as things were extant. There is not, at this point, a newly recognised party. It will not be recognised until 10.20 am next Monday — seven days from the receipt of the written notice. Therefore the question about its membership of Committees will have to wait until after that time. It would be entirely proper at that stage for the tabling of a motion to deal with the matter.
Mr P Robinson:
My proposition was not that we agree to membership by a Member of the United Unionist Assembly Party but that we leave a position free. Will you give a ruling that next Monday there will be a motion ensuring that the Standing Orders to which this Assembly is bound shall be upheld and that they will have membership of that Committee?
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I cannot give the Member an immediate ruling. In the Initial Standing Orders and in the draft Orders which the Secretary of State sent, and which so many Members will have perused, there is a curious absence of information about how to deal with the circumstances in which a Member changes his party affiliation, a change which may also affect the representative arrangements. This is therefore a more important matter than membership of this ad hoc committee.
The draft Standing Orders indicate clearly the way in which the d’Hondt system should proceed, and when the time comes we will do that. However, if a number of Members were then to indicate that they were changing their party affiliation, subsequent to that, but not their designation as Unionist, Nationalist or Other affiliation, then it is quite possible that that could change the numbers and the out-working of d’Hondt if it were to be reworked at that point. But there is no indication about whether it should be reworked at that point; whether it should be reworked on the initiation of the Presiding Officer of the time; or whether it should require a motion to the Assembly proposing that there be a reworking.
That is clearly an omission in the Standing Orders. It is not surprising that there should be such an omission, but I am extremely reluctant, as Initial Presiding Officer, to give a ruling on it without thoroughly considering the question and consulting with the parties. It may be that events will require me to consult, or I may be pressed to make some kind of ruling. If so, I will do so as properly and as soon as I can. However, the issue only came to me, in a formal way, a few minutes before we met, and it would be quite wrong for me to make a ruling without such due consideration.
Mr P Robinson:
I ask you to reflect on this matter, because the Standing Orders are not silent on it. They are clear, and they are precise. Standing Order 15.2 says that each party, with at least two Members, shall have at least one seat on each Committee. You will want to ensure that these Standing Orders are upheld and, therefore, I ask you to consider that matter. I give notice that if the maximum number on any Committee is 18, one seat has to be made available for the new party. If we are sitting next Monday, we will propose that Sinn Fein’s representation be reduced by one to allow the new party to have that one seat.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I can assure you that when the matter becomes formally relevant I will give due consideration to it and report back to the Assembly.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
I know that you cannot, or are unwilling, to give a ruling on the point raised by Mr Robinson. However, could you give us a ruling on the designation of the Member of the United Unionist Assembly Party who signed the register this morning? Are you accepting the designation he gave, or does he have to wait seven days in a state of perpetual purgatory until he is accepted as a member of the United Unionist Assembly Party?
The Initial Presiding Officer:
The notion of perpetual purgatory is an interesting theological one, and I am sure it could be taken up in another place.
The designation of the Unionist Member who signed this morning was clearly Unionist. The affiliation he gave was that of the new party that has just been referred to, but that new affiliation and the recognition of that party as a party must wait for seven days, as was discussed earlier.
Mr Maskey:
In case Mr Robinson spends the rest of the week, in extended purgatory or whenever, thinking that Sinn Fein is going to drop a member of any of the Committees, let me say that this is not a matter for him to decide. I do not want any such notion to slip onto the record by default. You quite rightly pointed out that the matter is not yet resolved. There is not a new party in the Assembly yet. When the matter is fully resolved, we will all deal with it, and the question of proportionality will certainly be dealt with, I am sure, satisfactorily.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That under the terms of Initial Standing Order 15 this Assembly appoints an ad hoc Committee to consider the procedural consequences of devolution as they are likely to affect the relationship between, and workings of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament and, by Tuesday 6 October 1998, to submit a report to the Assembly which, if approved, will be forwarded to the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons.
| Composition: | UUP SDLP DUP SF Alliance UKUP PUP NIWC |
4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 |
| Quorum: | 8 |
Mr Adams:
A Chathaoirligh, pointe amháin eile. Could you make it clear to the Assembly that during a vote a Member may say "Tá" or "Níl" instead of "Aye" or "No".
The Initial Presiding Officer:
As I indicated - and our practice during the first meeting of the Assembly made this clear - people are free to respond in a number of different ways, and I will do my best to interpret what is said accurately and correctly.
In whatever language Members wish to respond - and most notably, as you indicate, in Irish, or in Ulster-Scots as some Members used at the last meeting - I assume they will do so at the appropriate point when I call for the Ayes and the Noes. Otherwise the Clerks and I will be left in some confusion.
Mr Adams:
This is only important in the context of trying to work out a new dispensation, and we should not allow the issue of the Irish language to become party political or to in any way be seen as being Ulster or Nationalist. It is therefore appropriate in your position of Cathaoirleach that you reflect that when addressing the Assembly. You did so very clearly at the first meeting; I note that it has not been done today.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I did not refer to the matter again. As far as my own designation is concerned, I am quite happy if it is Ceann Comhairle or Cathaoirleach or whatever other designation Members wish to use. Indeed, even in English quite a considerable number of designations have been given to me - some of them more accurate than others. I am called many things, as you know.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
If Members are going to speak in two or three different languages when they are asked to vote, it will be like the Tower of Babel in here, and Members are going to be totally and utterly confused about whether this House is for or against a motion. Why can Members not vote in the way that is laid down in the Standing Orders - by saying either "Aye" or "No"?
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I certainly urge Members to try to stick to the Standing Orders, and my understanding of them is that I am the Initial Presiding Officer rather than the Presiding Officer (Designate).
Mr S Wilson:
Mr Presiding Officer, would you accept "Dead on" or "Catch yourself on"? Where are you going to stop this nonsense? If this is to be extended as widely as you suggest, I would be entitled to use my preferred response in recognition of how people in east Belfast say yes or no. If this House is to understand whether Members are for or against a motion - and I noticed the odd syllable of English creeping into some of Mr Maskey's speeches this morning - can we not just stick to saying "Yes" or "No" in a language which I hope we can all speak and understand?
The Initial Presiding Officer:
In respect of your two acclamations, Mr Wilson, I assume that "Dead on" means yes but that "Catch yourself on" means something rather different. That is why I appeal to Members that if they wish to give assent, they do so in whatever way they wish, either with a positive grunt or a more clear articulation when I ask for the ayes, and those who wish to vote against give a negative grunt, or whatever, when I ask for the noes, and we will do our best to interpret them accurately.
Mr Beggs:
At our initial meeting it was specified that Members could use whatever language they wished when responding but only an "Aye" or a "Nay" would be recognised for voting purposes.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I am trying to be as generous as possible, even with the pronunciation of some of the ayes and noes.
Mr Farren:
Mr Presiding Officer, it is not the case that the words "Aye" and "Nay" are not part of Queen's English? What language are we speaking when we say "Aye" and "Nay"?
Mr Taylor:
"Tá" could also be misunderstood: in many regions of England that means "Thanks".
The Initial Presiding Officer:
There has been a fairly generous allocation of time for that debate so can we move on to receive the Report of the Standing Orders Committee, which will, undoubtedly, wish to consider these matters in further depth.
The two major reports are going to be dealt with in the order they appear on the Order Paper because that is the order in which the mandates were given at the last Assembly meeting.
Assembly:
Standing Orders
11.45 am
Mr Haughey:
As co-Chairman of the Committee on Standing Orders, I present to the Assembly the Interim Report. In conjunction with this Report Members should read the minutes of the Committee meeting of 1 September, which have been circulated, and the letter of 10 September from the Minister of State, Mr Murphy.
I beg to move the following motion:
That the Assembly takes note of the interim report prepared by the Committee on Standing Orders and grants leave for the preparation and presentation of a full report by 26 October 1998.
I would like to thank my co-Chairman, Mr Fred Cobain, for his help and co-operation. How Mr Cobain and I came to be co-Chairmen of the Committee is an intriguing story of fancy political footwork and occasional trick photography, but I will not bore Members with the details.
I thank the other members of the Committee for their hard work and their contribution to the formulation of this document. I also thank others who have attended in their capacity as observers for their interest in the work of the Committee. The Committee is also indebted to the Acting Clerk, the Second Clerk and the Third Clerk for their very considerable help. The Committee has worked expeditiously and harmoniously to get to this point.
The Committee was set up by the Assembly on 1 July 1998, under Paragraph 15 of the Initial Standing Orders, and the terms of reference are as follows:
"To assist the Assembly in its consideration of Standing Orders and to report to the Assembly by 14 September 1998."
The Committee has a composition of four Members from the Ulster Unionist Party, four from the Social Democratic and Labour Party, three from the Democratic Unionist Party, three from Sinn Fein and one each from the Alliance Party, the United Kingdom Unionist Party, the Progressive Unionist Party and the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition. In the course of its business, the Committee also accorded observer status to the Independent Unionist grouping. It met for the first time on 6 July and there have been five meetings of the Committee since then.
First, the Committee gathered information from a wide-range of sources. We looked at examples of Standing Orders from the House of Commons, from the Dáil, from the European Parliament and from other bodies. We have considered 11 Rules, agreeing seven of them and remitting the other four for further in-depth consideration at future meetings. There is a full list of those in Annex A to the Report.
We have also had to deal with the Additional Standing Orders sent to us by the Secretary of State, by way of consultation. Members will find a copy of those draft Additional Standing Orders in the Report along with the Committee's response to them.
The letter from the Minister of State, Mr Murphy, indicates clearly that the opinions of the Committee on Standing Orders are being listened to. We must now deal with some potentially difficult Standing Orders and, from next week, the Committee will be meeting twice a week in order to take this business forward.
I commend this report to the House. It represents the product of many hours of hard and constructive work by members and officials of the Committee.
Mr Dodds:
I join Mr Haughey in expressing our gratitude to the clerks who have had to work very hard at the outset of this Committee to gather all the relevant papers and documentation from other places. The real work of this Committee begins now, for we have really only begun to discuss the main issues. It would be wrong to deal just with the procedures and the setting up of the Committee and not to detail some of the issues which the Committee has already dealt with and, indeed, some of the issues which we may have to deal with shortly in order to meet the 26 October deadline.
A number of the issues that the Committee has dealt with relate to issues that have already arisen today in the House. This demonstrates the need to resolve these issues urgently, in particular, the question of designation and the issue of whether Members should be entitled to change designation by giving seven days' notice. This is not in the agreement or in the legislation. But here we have it in the Standing Orders, designed to allow Members to jump back and forward at seven days' notice to help particular parties out of a difficulty if they feel that they are not going to obtain support in the House under the cross-community voting provision.
Despite the opposition of some Ulster Unionist Party Members - not all of them - and one or two of the smaller parties, I am glad to report that there seems to be a general consensus that it is wrong in principle that Members who designate themselves as Unionists or Nationalists should, after seven days' notice, be able to change their designation purely for the purposes of ensuring that a particular vote is won in either the Unionist or National block and then switch back to their real designation. Such action would bring this House and its proceedings into total disrepute and so it is essential that when we are dealing with these Standing Orders, we delete this offensive mechanism.
I hope the Committee Members will see that this is a matter of principle and that when Members designate themselves as either Unionist or Nationalist, that designation should remain - that was the intention and purpose of the arrangements that were set up.
One of the smaller parties argued that it would allow for movement if people could change their designation. But the only effect of changing from Unionist to Other or from Nationalist to Other is that one's vote is lost for the purposes of cross-community voting. The only reason that parties want to have this procedural ability to change designation is to ensure that, instead of their vote not counting under the cross-community provisions, it will count on certain occasions when it suits either the Ulster Unionist Party or the Social Democratic and Labour Party.
I want to discuss one or two of the matters outlined in the draft Initial Standing Orders sent to the Members of the Committee by the Secretary of State and to which you referred earlier. The Secretary of State has undertaken to take on board what is said by the Committee and by the Assembly today.