Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 1 February 1999 (continued)
Mr Haughey:
I will read it in a minute.
There is therefore no question of Mr Wilson's right to raise the motion, and Mr McCartney and others accept this. Standing Order 11(1) further provides
"and unless it shall appear to the Presiding Officer that such motion is an abuse of these Standing Orders, the question that the question be now put shall be put forthwith."
What is an abuse of the Standing Orders? The Presiding Officer is empowered by Standing Order 11(1) to make a judgement.
On 18 January six UUP Members, seven SDLP, five DUP, five Sinn Féin, two Alliance, two NIUP, one PUP, one NIWC, one UKUP and one UUAP had spoken. Every party was given the right to speak. Every party made an input.
Let us look at the input that was made. It is instructive. To be fair to Dr Paisley, he did refer to the report in very generalised terms. He was followed, for his party, by Mr Campbell who devoted all of his remarks to decommissioning, a matter which was not on the agenda and was not dealt with in the report. Mr Wells followed for the DUP, and likewise did not speak about the report. Mr Shannon followed, and he dealt exclusively with the Good Friday Agreement and decommissioning. Mr McCartney then followed with the Good Friday Agreement.
The Temporary Chairperson:
I will take a point of order. Could the Member please sit while I am standing?
Rev William McCrea:
Is it in order that a Member should say that the Acting Initial Presiding Officer, on a previous occasion, when my hon Friend was speaking, permitted him to speak on something that was not relevant. Is it right that there should be such criticism of the Chair?
The Temporary Chairperson:
This is not a point of order. I also ask that the Member stick to the relevance of the debate.
Mr Haughey:
I am sticking entirely to the relevance of the debate. The debate is on whether we should have confidence in the Presiding Officer, and that is affected by whether he made a reasonable judgement on this occasion. Did this party have an opportunity to make an input into the debate. I am pointing out it did, and that it did not avail of it. I have listed the Members who made contributions - Mr Watson, Mr Carrick, Mr Boyd, Mr Roche. All those members of the anti-Agreement family had opportunities to speak, although they dealt almost exclusively with matters that were not before the House at all.
To argue that they did not get an opportunity to deal with the matter in question is clearly wrong and absurd especially in circumstances where almost none of what they had to say was relevant. I quote Initial Standing Order 2(1):
"The Presiding Officer's ruling shall be final on all questions of procedure and order."
If I have any criticism of the Initial Presiding Officer it is that he showed a little too much indulgence to the codology, the guffawing, the sniggering, the catcalling, the schoolboy, schoolyard antics of the DUP and associated anti-agreement parties. They assert that this is a vital matter affecting everybody, but then rush to the door. The previous day Ulster was being sold out - a shameful betrayal - and they were behaving as though they were at the movies. There was laughter, guffawing and sniggering of a kind and duration that few of us have had the misfortune to see in the past.
Mr Robinson referred to the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer. He is calling for the rule and the rubric to be quoted word by word. Where do the rules give CAPO the right to determine and regulate the business of the House? CAPO's role is to advise the Initial Presiding Officer, and that is clearly laid down in the regulations that established CAPO. Its decision to allocate two or three days to this debate was indicative - not imperative. Those who are shamming and crying that they did not get an opportunity to make their views known had that opportunity but did not bother to deal with the issue that was before the House. The Initial Presiding Officer's ruling was entirely valid, appropriate, and intelligent, and I support it to the hilt.
Mr Hilditch:
Regrettably, it is necessary for this issue to be brought before the House. I welcome the opportunity to support the motion.
On 18 January, the Assembly was presented with the long-awaited report of the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) on the future government of Northern Ireland. Its content was crucial to the whole community, and that was clearly identified by those who were responsible for formulating the business of the Assembly because two to three days were set aside for the debate. Having agreed the schedule at the outset, the Initial Presiding Officer was aware of the need to permit as much input as possible to the debate. He made a poor judgement in his decision to permit the Assembly to govern itself on this matter.
One of the main selling points of the agreement was the fact that a 108-Member Assembly would be put in place to bring about devolved government in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, it was agreed to increase the number of seats in each constituency from five to six - a change from previous decisions. That was to permit maximum representation from within our community, thus allowing the maximum contribution on behalf of our constituents.
For example, in relation to my constituency of East Antrim, if Mr Neeson had not been called in his capacity as leader of the Alliance Party, it is possible that no one from that area would have had the chance to express his views to the House, irrespective of whether he was pro or anti-agreement. That results in a serious under-representation of our communities and sends the wrong signals to the general public.
While the Initial Presiding Officer's actions may have done a great disservice to many Members, he has also created a perception and a lack of confidence in the Assembly by the electorate. To many, it seems that when the going gets tough and the heat is on, the guillotine will be produced and the debate ambushed. That is the wrong message to send to the outside world. I have highlighted what the community expects in such circumstances, but there is also a need for equality within the House.
The Standing Orders were quoted by my colleague Mr Robinson. They state that closure occurs after a motion has been proposed and provided that each of the parties present has had reasonable opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Did the Initial Presiding Officer really deem this to be the case?
12.00
On previous occasions many parties had between 40% and 50% of their Members speaking in the debate. On 18 January 1999 the Democratic Unionist Party, the third largest group, had less than one third of its membership called despite the fact that all Members wished to speak. The Initial Presiding Officer had recognised this deficit on past occasions but failed, on 18 January 1999, to redress the matter and show equality.
After the community and the party, I as an individual, having been called by the Initial Presiding Officer, rose to speak but was ambushed and guillotined by the Initial Presiding Officer upholding the intervention of Mr J Wilson. If a Member has been called, his freedom of speech should be acknowledged, and any closure or putting of the question be put on hold. I have not yet received a satisfactory response to the question which I put to the Initial Presiding Officer on 18 January 1999.
On the question of individual Members' participation, the issue must be raised as to why the Initial Presiding Officer determined a debate of two to three days, knowing the maximum time allocated to each Member and then, after five hours, allowed the debate to be closed. This indicates a serious misjudgement and clearly shows that a reasonable number of Members had not taken part in the debate.
Thirty Members may have contributed before the closure, but the time allocated would have allowed at least another 30 participants. If it had not been for the misjudgement of the Initial Presiding Officer many Members like myself from grass-roots Unionist and Loyalist backgrounds would have been able to give our views on issues raised in the report such as departmental structures, cross-border bodies, executives and, of course, the D-word - decommissioning.
It was, of course, the highlighting of the decommissioning issue which led to the unease among the Ulster Unionists, and despite assurances from the Deputy First Minister Designate that all would be listened to, both the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP contrived with others to force the Initial Presiding Officer to make a very poor decision.
While decommissioning was the word on most people's lips on 18 January 1999, the D-word today is democracy. If democracy cannot be upheld through freedom of speech then the wheelbarrow Mr Close referred to can be loaded up with democracy, wheeled down the mile-long driveway and dumped outside the gates on the Upper Newtownards Road.
I once again commend the motion in the hope that, in future, such blatant acts of denial of freedom of speech are ended and reasonable opportunities are afforded to constitutional parties and individuals who adhere to the democratic process.
Mr Campbell:
Does the Member agree that it is more than a little hypocritical of the hon Member for Mid Ulster, Mr Haughey, to attack and lambast the Leader and Deputy Leader of this party for leaving the Chamber and then to do likewise within minutes of sitting down?
Mr Hilditch:
I agree totally.
The Temporary Chairperson:
I call Prof Monica McWilliams.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
On a point of order. Mr Hilditch drew attention to page 473 of the Official Report, where he is reported as having said
"Having been ambushed and guillotined again, I am asking for a ruling on the putting of the Question. My freedom of speech has been affected. I had been told that I was to speak and was on my feet when I was interrupted. Was the putting of the Question ultra vires?"
You will note from the continuation of The Official Report that that question was not answered. It is important and incumbent upon yourself to give us a ruling on that matter.
The Temporary Chairperson:
I do not understand the point of order being referred to.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
The point of order is that during the course of his speech today Mr Hilditch has drawn attention to the fact that the Initial Presiding Officer at the last meeting and again this morning in his comments failed to give a ruling on the point he raised: the interruption of his speech by Mr J Wilson was ultra vires and therefore the putting of the Question was ultra vires.
The Temporary Chairperson:
I understand the point you are making, and, certainly, a ruling was required and requested of the Initial Presiding Officer at the last meeting. It should be put to him at a later stage.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Further to that point of order. Given the confidence on this side of the House that our motion will be successful, how can I put it to him if he is not returned?
The Temporary Chairperson:
Put it to the Initial Presiding Officer - whoever that may be.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
I am putting the question to you, as you are in the Chair today, to make these rulings.
Mr Farren:
If Mr Hilditch and Mr Ian Paisley Jnr looked further down the same column of the report, they would see, on page 473, that the Presiding Officer did give an answer to that question.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Further to that point of order, Madam Chair. You have not yet given me a ruling on this matter. It is not for another Member to supply you with his interpretation of a ruling; it is up to you to give a ruling on the matter. After Mr Hilditch spoke, three other Members made additional points of order that could be interpreted as being repetitious. Mr Hilditch's point of order was a completely separate matter, and he has not yet received a ruling from the Initial Presiding Officer.
The Temporary Chairperson:
The Initial Presiding Officer will return to the Chair after this debate. It is more appropriate that he should deal in that matter.
Ms McWilliams:
I welcome Ms Morrice in her position as acting Chairperson.
Our Initial Presiding Officer has had difficulties. It has often been said in the Chamber that this is not Westminster. Nor is it the Forum, which existed for two years before the Assembly. There seems to be much confusion about the Assembly's procedures. The Initial Presiding Officer has tried to interpret the Initial Standing Orders, and he has often made the point that he would like the Standing Orders Committee to provide him with final Standing Orders that could be approved by the Secretary of State. Until such time, he must follow the Initial Standing Orders.
The Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer is exactly that. It is a committee that advises; it is not a committee that rules. The final authority rests with the House. In allowing the closure motion on 18 January, the Initial Presiding Officer was asking Members whether they wanted the Question to be put then. Seventy-five Members said "Aye" and 24 Members said "No". In other words, the Chamber ruled that we move to close the debate.
The record of proceedings of 18 January shows that we asked the Initial Presiding Officer to close the proceedings earlier than the Wednesday morning, which, according to Mr Robinson, was when the debate should have closed. However, page 466 of Hansard quotes Mr Peter Robinson as saying that if it was possible to close by Tuesday night, the Initial Presiding Officer could do so. That shows, therefore, that we have already given the Initial Presiding Officer authority to close a debate earlier than was agreed in the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer. However, the Initial Presiding Officer chose to ask the Assembly if the Question that would close the debate should be put.
We should, therefore, vote against today's motion and show confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer. He had no alternative to putting the procedural Question on that occasion.
From time to time, Members may not like the rulings of the Initial Presiding Officer, and there have been occasions when we have asked him to rule, in consultation with 'Erskine May', on whether some of the language and behaviour in this Chamber has been discourteous or unparliamentary.
We have heard rulings which may not please every Member, but if this Chamber is to operate, it must accept them. We may be unhappy with them but we must work to ensure that proceedings in this Chamber are not discourteous.
It does not help the Chamber, in its early days, that a vote of no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer is sought. This is more a quarrel about the fact that some Members did not get to speak on that occasion.
The Initial Presiding Officer has had to take account of the number of Members present and of the mandate of parties and make rulings on who should speak and who should not. Some Members have been displeased when debates have been closed, and not all have been able to put their positions. The Initial Presiding Officer might not get it right all the time, but I think that he has got it right most of the time.
I oppose the motion of no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer.
Mr Morrow:
I rise today as one of those who was deprived of the opportunity to speak on 18 January. The motion before the Assembly today is one of no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer.
I am a member of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer. Those who attend that Committee will recall that it decided that Monday 18, Tuesday 19 and, if necessary, Wednesday 20 January should be designated as the days for debating the report from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). Everybody agreed that that was the best way forward.
It is often asked "What is a person other than his word?" When Mr Jim Wilson moved that the Question be now put, he did so knowing that he was breaking his word and a commitment already given. He found plenty of allies in his new-found friends in the SDLP and Sinn Féin/IRA. By so doing he has put future decisions of CAPO under the spotlight.
Never again can we place any confidence in what Mr Wilson tells us. Mr Wilson, the Ulster Unionist Chief Whip, should be in the dock today too, but he is not.
12.15 pm
I will repeat what Mr Wilson said at a meeting of CAPO because the Assembly is entitled to know what motivates him. Mr Wilson said that, if expedient - his word, not mine.
He is nodding. He is saying that that is what he said.
Mr Farren:
May we please have a ruling that this is a motion of no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer, and not one dealing with the conduct of Mr Jim Wilson.
The Temporary Chairperson:
I must ask the Member to remain with the relevance of the motion.
Mr Morrow:
Mr Wilson is on record as saying that, if expedient, he would, of course, do those things in the future which would be an advantage to him or his party. He put "him" first.
We know what motivates Mr Wilson: himself. I took the time to check the definition of "expedient" in the dictionary. It is quite interesting. It means to do something based on -
Dr McDonnell:
On a point of order. The last point of order seems to have been lost on Mr Morrow. I ask for a firm ruling that he must stick to the subject of the debate.
The Temporary Chairperson:
May I remind the Member that the issue is one of confidence or not in the Initial Presiding Officer and not the movements or decisions of Mr J Wilson.
Dr McDonnell:
If the Member persists, is it appropriate that he be ruled out of order?
Mr Morrow:
I am trying to set the scene. The House carries out its business, and it is CAPO which decides what that business is. Never before, to the best of my knowledge, has the House or the Initial Presiding Officer refused to take the recommendations of CAPO.
Mr J Wilson:
Will you give a ruling, Madam Speaker, on the purpose of the CAPO meeting? Does it take decisions, as has been said, or is its purpose to give advice to the Presiding Officer?
The Temporary Chairperson:
It is clearly the latter. The purpose of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer is, as its name implies, to advise the Presiding Officer.
Mr Morrow:
I repeat that CAPO's recommendations have never been turned down, and I hope that Mr Wilson will take note.
As I was about to say before I was interrupted, at least we know what motivates Mr Wilson. It has been said that he had additional reasons -
The Temporary Chairperson:
May I remind you that the motion is on the matter of the Initial Presiding Officer and not of Mr J Wilson.
Mr J Wilson:
I am enjoying it.
Mr Morrow:
During the Adjournment debate on 18 January, Mr Tierney of the SDLP indicated that he had been under the impression that the debate would go on. He said
"I nearly voted along with the DUP tonight!"
Maybe he is prone to exaggeration.
Mr Tierney:
That is what I said.
Mr Morrow:
Yes, and he went on
"The reason was that I was told last week that I was speaking on Wednesday. At lunchtime today I was told that I was speaking tomorrow night -
the fellow was undoubtedly confused, but then most members of the SDLP are -
"and two hours ago I was told that I was speaking tonight."
To keep favour with his Chief Whip, he then said
"I am not criticising my Chief Whip"
for confusing me - my words, not his -
"but I will raise the matter at our next meeting."
Mr Haughey:
On a point of order, Madam Chair. Standing Order 10(1)(iv) says that if any Member of the Assembly intentionally refuses to conform to any Standing Order, the Presiding Officer has certain powers. It is beyond dispute that Mr Morrow is not conforming to Standing Orders. He is not being relevant to the matter in front of us. I call upon you, Presiding Officer, to exercise your powers.
Mr Campbell:
Further to that point of order, Madam Chair. I do not know what the problem is with our Chief Whip's speaking, but I have now counted five separate occasions on which people have tried to interrupt him with bogus issues to prevent him from completing his speech. He was prevented from making it two weeks ago, so can we allow him to make it today?
The Temporary Chairperson:
Numerous points of order have been raised asking that the Member restrict his comments to those that are relevant to the debate. He has drifted from the point, and I ask him to keep to the subject matter. [Interruption] I will take those points of order. I have to say, however, that Mr Campbell made the point that his Chief Whip had been interrupted on a number of occasions and if I take these points of order, that will mean further interruptions.
Rev William McCrea:
Why was Mr Haughey called? He had not asked for a point of order. He asked for it only after you had called him - let us be clear about that. He stood up and remained standing whilst my friend was on his feet making a speech - that is not the order of the House.
The Temporary Chairperson:
I took Mr Haughey's point which referred to a Standing Order. Had he not begun his point, I would have asked him to sit.
There were three points of order raised - Mr Paisley Jnr, Mr Wilson and a third. Do you wish to put these points of order? If not, I ask Mr Morrow to continue.
Mr Morrow:
Madam, had I been left alone, I would have been finished by now.
In case it has slipped anyone's mind, I want to draw the attention of the House to what was being debated on the day the guillotine was operated on Mr Wilson's initiative. It was, of course, a report produced by a so-called Unionist Mr Trimble and by a strident Nationalist Mr Mallon.
It is significant that a debate on that report - a report which was supposed to have far-reaching effects on the future of this country - was guillotined and that I and others were not allowed the time to speak. My view was that the report was not only rotten from the core but rotten to the core. I should have been allowed to give my observations on it, but I was prevented from doing so by those who see expediency as being the order of the day. It ill behoves those who behave in such a manner - stealing cheap points - but maybe it is better to have something like this happen early on in the Assembly because they can be dead sure it will never happen again.
In that report, a way forward for Northern Ireland was recommended -
The Temporary Chairperson:
Please let me know in what way the content of the report is relevant to the motion.
Mr Morrow:
Was it right for the Presiding Officer not to permit Members of the House to speak on that day even though they had already submitted their names? I conclude that he was wrong and that on this occasion he looked around and, under the pressure coming from the two largest political blocks, he wilted and decided to put the procedural Question. Everybody in the Assembly has a right to speak, but the Initial Presiding Officer was pushed by Mr J Wilson and others.
They were also wrong to use the term "expediency" to convey to the outside world that there was little debate or interest in what was happening in the Chamber. I hope that in the future parties will be given a better crack of the whip. Mr Trimble had problems that day, and Mr Wilson was aware of them. There were at least four Members on his bench who were prepared to deviate.
Mr J Wilson:
On a point of order, will you please tell the House precisely what you are going to do? Several times you have informed the Member that he is out of order, but he clearly has no intention of paying you any respect. He is ignoring you. What are you going to do?
The Temporary Chairperson:
There are one and a half minutes left for this Member. I have reminded Mr Morrow several times and referred to this as being the last time. I was grateful that in the last minute he did return to the motion, but then he left it again. The Member may have his last minute to speak, but I will remind him that if he strays once more from the no-confidence motion he will have to terminate his speech.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Further to that point of order. I hope you are going to use the same whip hand against other Members of the House when they stray. We had, for instance, Mr Haughey's quite deliberate diversion about Assembly Members' reputations, as well as points of order raised by other Members.
The Temporary Chairperson:
Thank you for that. I will.
Mr Morrow, please continue.
The First Minister (Designate) (Mr Trimble):
On a point of order. I have noticed that the clock has been stopped during these points of order. This is evidently a new practice. Does it apply only to points of order or also to interventions?
The Temporary Chairperson:
I understand that the clock is normally stopped during points of order.
Mr Morrow:
I am concerned about the way in which the Initial Presiding Officer handled the Assembly sitting on 18 January. Will he allow himself to be used again in future sittings? A precedent has now been established, and future sittings will be abused in the same way that we witnessed on 18 January. We must keep in mind Mr J Wilson's warning that expediency will be the order of the day.
I believe that the Initial Presiding Officer was wrong to put the procedural Question on 18 January. He should have used his discretion and allowed the debate to continue until at least Tuesday.
The sitting was suspended 12.29 pm and resumed at 2.00 pm.
Mr Douglas:
The Presiding Officer is supposed to act impartially, and the fact that this motion is being debated today shows, sadly, that many Members feel that he has not done that. The Speaker's role is to provide guidance and help Members to rise above party politics and the factions which exist within this Chamber. The perception is that the Speaker has failed to fulfil that role.
"The arms issue must be tackled at the beginning with clear commitments given which will be honoured by actual decommissioning beginning in a short period."
This statement from David Trimble shows, as far back as June 1996, the feebleness of the Ulster Unionist Party leadership's confronting of Sinn Féin. In January 1999 Members were asked to approve a report which contained stand-alone cross-border bodies with executive powers.
The Temporary Chairperson:
May I ask the Member to restrict his comments to the motion.
Mr Douglas:
Madam Chair, there are references to the motion in every paragraph of my speech.
We were told that we had been ambushed. The togetherness of Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party in that ambush says it all. The depths to which the Ulster Unionist Party has sunk beggars belief. The coalition of the Ulster Unionist Party, Sinn Féin/IRA and the SDLP shows the future in store for principled, anti-IRA Unionists.
Mr McClarty:
On a point of order. Is the Member for East Londonderry keeping to the motion?
The Temporary Chairperson:
I was very generous, during the earlier part of the debate, over the relevance of issues. I ask those Members yet to speak to be extremely careful in keeping to the motion under debate. I will not be so generous this afternoon.
Mr Roche:
I do not think that it is possible to determine whether or not a Member has kept to the issue in question until he has completed his speech. It would be quite arbitrary to make a ruling on this.
The Temporary Chairperson:
I acknowledge the point of order made by Mr Roche. However, it should be obvious to all Members what is relevant to the debate and what is not. I ask every Member to adhere to the motion.
Mr C Wilson:
You have said that this morning you were generous in allowing certain leeway, but that this afternoon you intend to adopt a different approach. I do not believe that anyone could consider that to be fair and proper.
Rev William McCrea:
Mr Douglas had been speaking for one minute and 35 seconds when it was suggested that he was straying from the subject. He had not started to develop his argument. That treatment was described as lenient. Surely it is wrong to suggest that after less than two minutes one can decide that a Member is straying from the subject. Mr Haughey spoke for 10 minutes and not once touched on the subject.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Further to that point of order. Is it right for Mr Haughey to attack me in my absence when I was at the funeral of a close friend? In any debating forum it is sensible to know the reason for a person's absence before commenting on it. I have a good parliamentary record, and I know that people should remain in the Chamber. After Mr Haughey made his speech he left the Chamber. I had to attend a friend's funeral, and I make no apology for that.
The Temporary Chairperson:
I do not think that that was a point of order. I should like to give Mr Douglas the opportunity to continue.
Mr Poots:
Further to the point of order. Every Member must have an opportunity to develop his speech. It is unfair for experienced Members to use points of order to disrupt the speeches of new Members. I ask for a ruling on that abuse of the system.
The Temporary Chairperson:
I agree that Mr Douglas should have the opportunity to develop his speech.
Mr Gibson:
Further to the point of order. Is it not pertinent that on this occasion the Arthur Daleys of Unionism are already trying to derail the debate by engaging in their normal political promiscuity?
The Temporary Chairperson:
That is not a point of order. Mr Douglas, please continue.
Mr Douglas:
Many Members tell us that they are democrats and must allow that I am entitled to speak.
Every paragraph in my speech contains a reference to the motion. What did the Ulster Unionists achieve by voting with Sinn Féin in an ambush against their fellow Ulster citizens? Our refusal to acquiesce in approving Sinn Féin's entrance into government has caused a political impasse. Accepting armed terrorists in an Executive is morally wrong. Token gestures of Semtex and other explosives will not suffice. Not to debate the report in full was also morally wrong.
No amount of smart moves, shady dealings or strokes to stifle debate, with or without the help of the Initial Presiding Officer, can hide the emerging voting pattern involving Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist in a coalition. Why have a debate at all? I put to David Trimble the question that he posed to the Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam, in September 1997: how can anyone justify bringing to the table of democracy those who have been responsible for murder and other iniquitous crimes for which they have not paid their debt to society? By their actions, David Trimble and his negotiating team have done exactly that. These people will not now be brought to justice. David Trimble has secured a virtual amnesty for IRA and INLA murderers and bombers.
In 1997 David Trimble told the people "We are here not to talk to Sinn Féin but to confront them and expose their Fascist character." However, on every occasion in 1998 and 1999 the Ulster Unionist Party has voted with Sinn Féin/IRA - its friends in the Assembly. Not even a fool would call that confrontational. Instead, the Ulster Unionist Party has bestowed on IRA/Sinn Féin a worldwide credibility usually reserved for statesmen. It regularly meets privately with Gerry Adams.
Mr McGimpsey:
Madam Chairman, this has got absolutely nothing to do with the motion. This is another example - [Interruption]
Members are engaging in a sixth-form debating routine.
Mr Douglas has said nothing that bears any relationship to the motion.
The Temporary Chairperson:
Although Mr Douglas said that his points were relevant, there are certainly some that relate more to the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin than to the motion. I remind him to speak to the motion.
Mr Douglas:
In approving the January report, one must ask if this will provide an opportunity for Sinn Féin to get into government? For my colleagues and me the risk is too great. It would be like giving a seal of approval to Sinn Féin/IRA and any Government that they are accepted in while they maintain their armed capability. The cutting short of the debate was a great disservice to those who elected us, but it exposed the togetherness of Sinn Féin/IRA and the Ulster Unionist Party.
Obviously the Ulster Unionist Party feels that this is not the case. They guillotined the anti-Agreement Members, but at what price? Despite the ambush, our heads are still on. There was much confusion among the Unionist Assembly Members about the ramifications of voting on the report. Did the fear of what they were voting for forge the alliance?
Many do not want to see Sinn Féin/IRA take part in an Executive without decommissioning. Why punish our own people again and again? Will we be ambushed again today? Now Unionists are expected to approve cross-border bodies, with stand-alone executive powers, without one gun being handed over. Those who had any doubt that the approval of this report was a back-door passport to allow Sinn Féin/IRA into an Executive should have voted against it. The Ulster Unionist Party leader could have defended that action by explaining that the IRA are unreconstructed terrorists. Instead, the party choose to ambush fellow Unionists by jumping into bed with its friends, IRA/Sinn Féin. This motion would be unnecessary if protocol had been observed.
Mr Foster:
Is the Member speaking to the motion? I am not making any excuse for Sinn Féin, but he has gone off the board completely.
The Temporary Chairperson:
Mr Douglas, your references to guillotining and ambushing are relevant, but you have approximately four minutes left and you must refer to the motion and not to other issues.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
On a point of order, Madam Chairman. How can it be in order for you to declare that what we are discussing is a debate that was brought to an untimely end by the Chairman? Surely the Member is entitled to go into the details of the debate and of the way his party was dealt with during it. Fifty per cent of the Members of your party spoke in the debate, but now, when a Member is describing what took place and making the point that his party did not get a fair say, you rule that that is not relevant.
This is a very wide debate. It deals with the Presiding Officer and says that Members have no confidence in him. Members could roam from Dan to Beer-sheba in this debate. Members such as Mr Foster and Mr McGimpsey need to go to the House of Commons to see how much goes into a debate there. Of course, they will never make it.
2.15 pm
Mr Douglas:
Madam Chair, I have not much more to say. Indeed, had certain Members not interrupted, I would have finished long ago. This motion would have been totally unnecessary had proper protocol been observed. The voting alliance of the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Féin has now been exposed. I hope that such motions will be unnecessary in future. I support the motion - free speech is a right, not a privilege. I hope that the behaviour of the Presiding Officer, which has caused so much offence and hurt, will never be repeated in this Chamber.
Mr M Robinson:
I am one of the Members who were listed to speak on 18 January in a debate which was originally billed as a three-day event. I understand that it had been agreed to by all the parties at a CAPO meeting. I contend that the Initial Presiding Officer - namely, the Member for East Belfast, the Lord Alderdice - in allowing the closure motion to be put on Monday 18 January, did quite wantonly and outrageously, and apparently without regret, disenfranchise a significant proportion of the electorate in my constituency.
I also assert that by his action he deliberately pandered to the wishes of certain pro-agreement elements in the Ulster Unionist Party and beyond. Had I been able to speak on 18 January, as it was my steadfast hope to do, I might well have concluded that the Assembly, having been set up with such ill-advised haste following the signing of the Belfast Agreement, had resulted in an unholy mess. The befuddled thinking behind the emanating documentation, including the report presented to the Assembly on 18 January by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), beggars belief.
The First Minister (Designate) attempted to explain away his folly by telling Members that a final report would be necessary as there were certain areas of government which had not been fully considered. It was due to his ineptitude that these essential areas - for example, the Child Support Agency - were overlooked, forgotten or ignored. They should have been included in the agreement between the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP reached on 18 December 1998. Perhaps Mr Trimble should be congratulated - after all, he seems to have made a virtue of his crass stupidity.
It seems that Mr Trimble's stupidity - some would say infamy - knows no bounds. In a recent letter he says
"critics have complained that the allocation of 10 departments will not reflect the community balance."
Mr Farren:
Madam Chair, I must again draw to your attention that what Members are hearing is a contribution dealing with the content of the First and Deputy First Ministers' report of 18 January, and not with the motion being considered today.
The Temporary Chairperson:
I remind Mr Robinson, as I have reminded his Colleagues, that this debate is about the Initial Presiding Officer and not the First Minister (Designate).
Mr M Robinson:
Mr Trimble penned these words:
"critics have complained that the allocation of 10 departments will not reflect the community balance."
Mr Farren:
The Member is continuing to focus on the First and Deputy First Ministers' report. I ask you, Madam Chair, to rule on whether or not the Member is adhering to the motion.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Is it in order for a Member to say to the Chair that he must insist? He can insist on nothing; he must abide by your ruling.
The Temporary Chairperson:
I remind Mr Robinson that he was continuing in what appeared to be the same vein. Can he please return to the motion?
Mr M Robinson:
Madam Acting Initial Presiding Officer, I must request your indulgence. Is it not the case that when a Member is making a maiden speech, as is my honour today, he is normally afforded a greater degree of courtesy and latitude than I appear to be receiving?
The Temporary Chairperson: My apologies, Mr Robinson. I was not aware that this was a maiden speech, and I should like you to continue, without interruption if possible. However, you must restrict your speech to the subject of the motion.
Mr M Robinson:
The most glaring, startling omission from the report that was presented to the Assembly on 18 January is the total failure to address and, more importantly, to resolve the issue of decommissioning.
Mr Haughey:
On a point of order, Madam Chairman. It is not consistent for the Members involved in this ludicrous exhibition to insist that these are the only Standing Orders under which we can operate. Furthermore, these Orders make no provisions for a Member making a maiden speech to be given licence to disregard the motion before the House. I ask you to rule that the Member's remarks are not relevant to the debate and to call upon him to discontinue.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Further to that point of order. You have made a ruling. Will you please ask Mr Haughey to keep it down?
The Temporary Chairperson:
I have made two rulings. The first is that there should be no inappropriate interventions. The second, which is the order of today, is that the Member should keep to the motion. I ask for order and for there to be no further inappropriate interventions. Mr Robinson has six minutes left.
Mr M Robinson:
The authors of the report cannot even bring themselves to pay lip service to the essential issue of decommissioning. Why is that, since this issue renders by comparison all other issues redundant? Mr Trimble's letter dated 8 January states
"The Ulster Unionist Party has now fulfilled all of its obligations under the Belfast Agreement. There remains only one party still to honour its commitments, and it is Sinn Féin/IRA on whom maximum pressure must be now exerted. As your leader I wish to assure you that Sinn Féin will not be included in the agreement that I have referred to above, if Sinn Féin/IRA do not honour their commitments to decommissioning made under the Belfast Agreement. If they do not, the Ulster Unionist Party will not form an Executive that includes Sinn Féin".
In illustration of a political reality, the dogs in the street and the cows in the field are often referred to. They, together with everyone else in Northern Ireland, know full well that Sinn Féin/IRA have no intention whatever of effectively dealing with the issue of decommissioning.
Mr Farren:
We are in grave danger of bringing the House into disrepute by contributions that are outside the terms of the motion. I seek your ruling on the continuing disregard of your earlier rulings on this matter.
Mr Campbell:
I raised the issue with the Chair. Two weeks ago there was an attempt, which is the subject of today's motion, to deprive Members of an opportunity to speak. That attempt succeeded, and that is the issue that we are addressing. Other avenues are being used to deprive Members of their democratic right to speak. You should exercise your authority, Madam Chair, and request that Members desist from attempting to stop a democratically elected representative from making his maiden speech.
Mr Haughey:
Further to Mr Farren's point of order, not only are the Member's remarks irrelevant, and persistently irrelevant despite the advice of Madam Chair and of Members who have intervened, but it is clear that he and his colleagues are trying to overturn the democratic decision of the House by creating circumstances in which they can make the speeches that they were unable to make at the previous plenary session. That is an abuse of the Initial Standing Orders, and I ask you, Madam Chair, to rule on that.
The Temporary Chairperson:
By Standing Order 8(6) I may direct a Member who persists in irrelevance or repetition to discontinue his speech. I mention that as a warning. I will allow the Member another chance, but if he moves away from the subject of the debate, I will direct that he discontinue his speech.
Mr P Robinson:
On a point of order, Madam Initial Presiding Officer. You mention a Standing Order about tedious repetition. Will you rule that it also relates to those who repeat the same point of order time after time with the sole intention of interrupting the Member who is speaking?
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Further to that point of order. You have ruled that you wish the Member to continue his speech. You do not want interruptions. Some Members obey your ruling only when it suits them. When it does not, they try to silence other Members.
The Temporary Chairperson:
When a Member is making his maiden speech, he should be allowed to speak without interruption. It is also important that the speech is relevant. I shall now ask the Member to finish his speech and to bear in mind my warning in relation to Initial Standing Order 8(6) should he move away from the subject of the debate.
Mr P Robinson:
On a point of order, Madam Acting Initial Presiding Officer. The clearly established precedent is that on a maiden speech a Member is given much more flexibility in terms of relevance.
The Temporary Chairperson:
I have been flexible. I ask for no further interruptions so that the Member can finish his maiden speech.
Mr M Robinson:
Thank you, Madam Acting Initial Presiding Officer. You may be relieved to hear that I have almost finished.
Is it not disingenuous of the Ulster Unionist leadership to beat their chests and claim that without decommissioning there will not be an Executive that includes Sinn Féin? These same Ulster Unionist leaders lied when they told the Unionist electorate that terrorists would not be released from prison until decommissioning had taken place.
Mr J Wilson:
I asked the Initial Presiding Officer what authority you would have, Madam Chair, and he told the House that you would have the authority that is given to him. You have heard umpteen points of order. Will you now rule that this Member is out of order?
2.30 pm
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
No Member has a right to direct how you rule. No one can ask the Speaker to rule in his favour. Where does the Member think he is - Glengall Street?
Mr M Robinson:
To conclude, as one of those who suffered as a result of the scandalous decision unilaterally taken by the Initial Presiding Officer, Lord Alderdice, I cannot now, or in the future, be comforted that he will be any more judicious than he has been to date in looking after the interests of Back-Benchers. Their fate is a pitiful one.
How are we to be heard? What arbitrator can we turn to in the face of high-powered political predators who wantonly call in the weapons of expediency to guillotine discussion? How can we ever stimulate our constituents if the roar of our rhetoric is to be denied? The sole interest of the Initial Presiding Officer seems to be the aiding and abetting of ruthless party managers who will stop at nothing in order to foist an unwanted and rejected agreement on the majority of the Unionist people of Northern Ireland.
I therefore support the motion.
Mr Ford:
I thought that Mr M Robinson had a point of order to develop before I spoke.
There have been a number of references in this debate to the meeting of CAPO. It was hard to find them in among the diatribes against the Ulster Unionist Party, but there were one or two. I wish to establish clearly what happened in those discussions in CAPO because not one but two meetings of that Committee were called to consider the arrangements for the plenary session on 18 January 1999. The normal CAPO meeting was held on 11 January 1999, and at that meeting a suggestion was made which led to a consultation on extending speaking time.
Proposals on which there was consultation were that the proposer should have up to 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes; that all parties in the first round should have 20 minutes rather than 10 minutes; that there should be wind-up speeches for the larger parties of 20 minutes (a precedent); and that the winding-up by the proposer of the motion should be extended to 20 minutes. Those would have been major changes in the time allowed for Members to speak.
We also discussed the length of time for debate at that meeting, and we talked about setting aside Monday and Tuesday with the possibility of running on into Wednesday. We never talked about a three-day debate, but we did, when we were discussing longer speeches, refer to a two-day debate. Consultation was required on that as well as on other issues relating to the motion to be debated. To have changed the length of the speeches would have required a variation of the Standing Orders, and that could only have been done by leave of the House.
We needed to consider the matter and meet again, which we did on Friday, 15 January 1999. There was no agreement at that meeting on changing the length of speeches, so we had no further discussion. Perhaps, at that point, we should have had more discussion.
Perhaps the entire membership of CAPO was at fault in considering whether we needed so long if the speeches were going to be shorter. It could be argued that we should have discussed it. What is not true is the kind of suggestion that has come from several DUP Members that we had agreed a three-day debate when we knew there were only going to be 10-minute speeches. That is not the case. What we did was ill-considered, but when we decided not to change the length of the speeches, clearly a change was made to the length of time required for the debate as a whole. We had originally been allowing for the possibility of longer speeches.
What we established at that point is what we have established today: this debate has absolutely nothing to do with whether we have confidence or not in the Initial Presiding Officer. We are not discussing the issue in the way CAPO discussed it or voted on it. It is quite clear from the speeches from the DUP and the UUAP that they are merely trying to rehash the debate that was shortened on the 18 January 1999, and to discuss this any further is a waste of time. There are other more important matters to discuss in a fortnight's time and much more to do. Since the DUP is incapable of talking to the motion it has proposed, it, like I, should cease speaking now.
Mr Clyde:
I support all that has been said by my DUP colleagues today. I have no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer because of the way that he acted during the debate on 18 January when he allowed a guillotine motion to bring to an end a debate that was very important for Northern Ireland. I question his judgement and the reasoning that lay behind his allowing the premature closure of what had already been agreed would be at least a two-day debate.
It was a false statement levelled against the DUP and democracy, although one could say that his judgement was in line with the so-called peace process, which, by its bending of the rules, denial of the truth, and "Yes" campaign's spin doctoring, was deforming democracy to suit its own ends. By his actions on 18 January, the Initial Presiding Officer denied me democracy. True democracy is a precious jewel with many bright facets, including the freedom of speech and the opportunity to exercise that freedom. By allowing the guillotine motion, Lord Alderdice denied me the opportunity to speak during the debate.
I object to the formation of 10 Government Departments when only seven are required to run Northern Ireland efficiently. Three extra Government Departments will add an additional £90 million to the Northern Ireland budget - money that would be better spent on our hospitals, education and infrastructure. However, it seems that Ulster Unionist Party Members - even against the better judgement of their own Westminster MPs and European MP - are determined to have "jobs for the boys".
On 18 January the Initial Presiding Officer decided that democracy was downgraded for all, not just me. As the DUP representative for South Antrim I have recently received views from many outraged Unionists. They expected that such an important subject as the proposed future structures of the Government of Northern Ireland would have been afforded at least the time agreed during the Committee meeting - namely, two days. They were not surprised that the Ulster Unionist Party Member for South Antrim moved a motion to close off debate. It seems to be more important for the Ulster Unionist Party to keep their new-found friends in the SDLP and Sinn Féin happy. Mr Trimble was quoted in the 'Irish News' on Tuesday 29 December as having said
"we are, I think, fast becoming inseparable."
This newly formed alliance between the UUP and SDLP Members worked well in order to bring about the guillotine motion, and the Unionist majority is asking what other tricks lie in store from these new-found friends.
I support this motion of no confidence motion. The Initial Presiding Officer's actions on 18 January added to a process that will see democracy being demolished. Some Members know all about demolishing. They have demolished lives, families, friends, towns and villages. All they seem to know is how to destroy and demolish, and they are now involved in a process of demolishing democracy. These might seem like strong words, but it is my honest opinion and that of the majority of Unionists with whom I am in contact that this is pulling down democracy. The process is clear to see - for example, the issue of decommissioning, or should I say the total lack of it.
Democracy has not been well-served: this issue is continually side-lined by some and pushed further down the pipeline by others. No, democracy has not been well served. Nor was it well served when Lord Alderdice took the decision on Monday, 18 January to move the guillotine motion, a decision which, to many inside and outside this Assembly, was taken rather quickly. I was amazed at the speed of that decision if, indeed, he had no pre-knowledge of what was going to happen. It was all settled rather quickly.
I am sorry that, for the reasons I have given, Lord Alderdice does not give me, or the people I represent, reason to have confidence in him.
I support fully the DUP's no-confidence motion.
Mr Foster:
It was not my intention to become embroiled in this debate, but I do contend that the motion is uncalled for and is of shabby appearance. It is really an attempt to redress injured pride rather than be constructive for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.
I do not agree with all the philosophy of Lord Alderdice, nor, I am quite sure, does he with mine. However, I do contend that he performs the onerous duties of Initial Presiding Officer of the Assembly with great skill, consistency of integrity, impartiality and obvious responsibility, and that has to be admired. He brings commendable dignity to his role and to the Assembly. I am not convinced that there are many others who could do equally or even nearly as well.
What was his problem a couple of weeks ago? He carried out his responsibilities - nothing more and nothing less. The meaning of Standing Order 11(1) which has been mentioned before - and I will not read it again - it is very clear. Thus I contend that this motion is shabby; is intended to be disruptive; and is sheer hypocrisy. It is an endeavour to destabilise the Assembly by stone-walling, filibustering and freebooting methods. It is pitiful, unforgivable, very base and typifies low-grade politics.
There are Members of the Assembly who, when we talk about origins, profess loud and lustily the Word of God. My experience here and at the Northern Ireland Forum, is that many Christian virtues are lacking. There are biblical words that apply to all of us:
"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
I make that point today because what we have is self-gratification - an attempt to redress damaged pride, which falls short of Christian virtues. I am told that pride was a greater share than goodness of heart. [Interruption]
Mr Paisley Jnr:
On a point of order. Is any of this Member's speech relevant to the debate? He was quick to insist that quotes and points raised by Members on this side of the House were not relevant. Surely his speech so far has been irrelevant.
The Temporary Chairperson:
Although you have mentioned the motion, you have not dealt with its subject, which is that this Assembly has no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer. You have referred to the context of the motion; I would prefer now that you deal with its content.
Dr McDonnell:
Is it in order for those Members in the back corner to behave like boot-boys and thugs while somebody is speaking?
The Temporary Chairperson:
May I have order please.
Dr McDonnell:
Madam Chair, I am fed up listening to the insults that have been traded. [Interruption]
Madam Chairman, I cannot be heard.