Mr Wells:

Mr Initial Presiding Officer - I hope within the next few days to be able to address you as Mr Speaker - I was not a member of the Standing Orders Committee, but, because of the busy nature of the work that the three Members from my party had to attend to, I attended as a substitute on no fewer than six occasions. Indeed, so regular was my attendance that one set of minutes recorded me as a member.

Like many others I am alarmed that the legislation does not enable the Standing Orders Committee to establish a statutory scrutiny committee to examine the powers exercised by the First and the Deputy First Ministers. I am extremely suspicious about how this happened because, while the Standing Orders Committee was meeting, a huge raft of new powers were added to that Office, and it would be total negation of democracy if there were not some controls and checks on that work. There is unanimity in the House on this: if the rights of all parties and the rights of all minorities are to be protected, there must be a brake on the powers, on the almost absolute powers on some very important matters, of the First and the Deputy First Ministers.

The message from the Assembly to the Secretary of State this morning is that new legislation is required on this crucial issue. It is no good saying that we can establish a committee if that committee does not have the power to require the presentation of papers or to request the First and the Deputy First Ministers to come forward and answer questions. It is really a bit of a sham. We must have the same powers as the statutory committees have over the Office.

A Member:

Reading?

Mr Wells:

I am certainly not reading.

I wish to speak on an issue which I have raised before -the speeches in the Assembly. I am glad to note that under Standing Order 17 this is addressed, but I think it is worth rehearsing the points that I made in the Committee. The present way in which we deal with speeches is strangling this body as a debating Chamber. A Member, unless he is proposing a motion, has 10 minutes in which to speak. The crucial point is that interventions from anyone on the Floor of House are included in that 10 minutes. The result is that Members are encouraged to get the head down and rattle through their speeches at 100 miles per hour because they have to try to squeeze in the maximum amount of material they can in the 10 minutes.

I got a lot of flak a few weeks ago when I suggested that people glanced at their notes while they were speaking. An all-party delegation came to me and told me that my remark was totally unacceptable, that it was scurrilous, and I was asked to apologise. If I caused offence, I apologise. I now realise that people glanced at their notes not to read them but to try to get as much material as possible into 10 minutes. Benefiting from this were the 'Mourne Observer', the 'Strabane Weekly News' and 'The Londonderry Sentinel' because as soon as a speech is made, the text is rushed by fax machine to the local papers. I am confident that if I miss a speech in the House I will always pick it up in the local papers.

The problem with the 10-minute rule is that people are encouraged to rattle through their speeches at great speed and, because interventions are included in their time, there is no incentive for them to give way. Why would anyone give way, although I always do? Members will not give way because they will lose precious time -

Mr A Maginness:

One of the problems about reading or giving a prepared speech, as opposed to an extempore speech, is that the reporters and journalists who cover the Assembly do not write down what is said. They rely on scripts. Some of the Member's remarks should be aimed at the media's reporting of the Assembly rather than at individual Members.

12.00

Mr Wells:

That is a valid point. One solution to that problem would be to cut the communication links to the rooms that the media have in this building and force them to sit in the Press Gallery and listen to the debates. A speech never seems as good in cold print as it did on the Floor of the House.

The hon Member for East Belfast, Sammy Wilson, is one of the best speakers in this Chamber. Others are, of course, Dr Paisley, Peter Robinson, Nigel Dodds, Gregory Campbell - to name a few. [Interruption] I certainly do not fall into that category.

We are blessed with some Members who speak outstandingly well, but in cold print in Hansard their speeches do not read as well as one typed by a research assistant who dotted the i's and crossed the t's.

This House must act as a debating chamber, where Ministers and Committee Chairmen stand up and are called to account by the Members. If we do not allow interventions during speeches all we will get is a series of monologues. We might as well stand out in the corridor and hand our speeches to the press. There is nothing to be gained by standing and reading 10 minutes of prepared text at great speed.

I proposed in the Committee - and I hope it will become the policy of this Assembly - that an intervention by someone not from the Member's own party should not be included in the 10 minutes and that an intervention by someone from his own party should. I suggested this because there could be an abuse of the situation - for instance, someone representing the DUP could allow 19 interventions.

Mr Campbell:

Surely not.

Mr Wells:

It could happen, and it would be abuse. If that is allowed to happen that Member could, effectively, have a 29- or 39-minute speech, which would not be acceptable. I suggested in the Committee that interventions, no matter who they are from, be limited to one minute. Any point raised can be made in that time. If it comes from an opponent it does not count, if it comes from someone in the Member's own party it does count.

Mr P Robinson:

There is a standard which is used practically in the House of Commons that it is not an intervention unless it is short. A minute would be far too long for an intervention, as mine has proved.

Mr Wells:

I bow to the greater experience of the hon Member for East Belfast. I thought when I included him among the best speakers in the House he would have let me have an easy ride, but he has not.

The point is that it is a maximum of one minute. Some of the highlights of Westminster parliamentary debate have been the cutting intervention which have sometimes floored the argument of an opponent, completely smashed it, or enabled the Member speaking to consolidate his argument. We do not want to go down the road of the Dáil.

Occasionally when my TV aerial turns the wrong way and I pick up RTE I have noticed Members in the Dáil reading their speeches. The former Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds was one of the worst examples of this. He would get a sheet of paper, put his head down and read very fast in a totally unintelligible accent. We do not want our Chamber to turn into that. We want to be much better than the Dáil. We should have the same standards as Westminster where some of the best debates ever recorded have occurred. People like Michael Foot, Tam Dalyell, Tony Banks, the Minister for Sport, are able, with a cutting intervention -

A Member:

Cecil Walker.

Mr Wells:

And Cecil Walker. They are able with a cutting intervention to completely wrong foot their opponent.

The point is that no one listens to a speech that is read. However, a speech that is not read is often listened to. Let us turn this into a debating chamber so that people can turn on their television sets, see this Chamber and say "Those people that we elected are debating. There is cut and thrust. They are worthy of election. They are not simply forced to read."

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Amendment No. 1 on the marshalled list, standing in the name of Mr Peter Robinson: moved or not moved?

Mr P Robinson:

Moved.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

This amendment, if carried, would affect Standing Orders and there therefore has to be a cross-community vote. In respect of the amendment, if there are no dissenting voices I will take that as giving cross-community approval, but when we come to the vote on the motion that we take note of the report as a whole, I will have to take a full cross-community vote.

Question That the amendment be made put and agreed to.

Mr Haughey:

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, is it your intention to allow summation?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

If you wish. That may be taken now.

Mr Haughey:

I want to refer to a few of the things that were said.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I will put the main question after that.

Mr Haughey:

I cannot speak for the Committee, but I will try to reflect the kind of consensus that we achieved. Members will have to speak for themselves if they differ from that. I can only make personal observations on the matters raised this morning.

I would like to pay tribute to Fred Cobain, Denis Arnold and Murray Barnes and, indeed, to the members of the Committee. The working of the Standing Orders Committee has been an example of what can be achieved when people put their best efforts towards achieving consensus.

To refer to the points raised by Mr Peter Robinson, the amendment which he put down and which has just been carried is perfectly sensible and not contentious. He referred to the incorporation of relevant sections from the Act and the agreement into a consolidated volume of Standing Orders. Again, a perfectly sensible and appropriate suggestion which, I imagine, we will follow up.

In relation to the errata which were circulated, he is proposing that they should be agreed as a single amendment. That is also sensible. I am not entirely sure that it is necessary, since the errata are part of the Standing Orders agreed in the Committee and reported to the House. However, this will put the matter beyond any doubt and is not unduly burdensome.

Mr Murphy raised the matter of the scrutiny of the Department of the Centre, and a number of other Members subsequently referred to the matter. Because of the nature of the Act, this is an extremely complicated matter which needs careful consideration. The Standing Orders Committee has properly reported that this issue gave rise to concern, and the Assembly needs to look at it. The point raised by Mr Murphy about flags on this Building is not a matter for the Standing Orders Committee, and that was one of the things we rushed to agree at the very beginning.

Mr Close also raised the issue of the scrutiny of the Department of the Centre. I should point out to Mr Close that amendments to the Bill were taken in the House of Lords. Perhaps he might look within his own party for procedures for dealing with that. My party unfortunately cannot deal with the House of Lords.

Mr Roche suggested that Standing Orders should provide the Assembly with a means of controlling North/South bodies. No doubt he has put down an amendment to that effect, and the House will have an opportunity to consider it.

Ms Morrice raised the question of gender consciousness. A proper appreciation of gender consciousness is, I think, reflected throughout this report. Where it is not, the report can be properly amended under the procedure which has now been adopted subsequent to Mr Robinson's amendment.

Ms Morrice also raised the question of the concerns of the smaller parties, particularly in relation to the composition of Committees. I have to say that strict proportionality could be achieved only if every Member were a member of every Committee. Other than that, it is a question of trying to get proportionality in a manageable way within each Committee. In relation to the statutory Committees it would be an extreme burden, particularly upon the larger parties, if membership of those Committees were to reach a point where the smaller parties would be able to cover every standing Committee. It just would not be possible.

A membership of 11, which was generally agreed in the Committee, will give every Member a fair opportunity, insofar as it is possible, to be a member of a Committee.

Mr McCartney raised the question of the control of the Executive, and he referred to the situation in the House of Commons by way of illustrating his point. However, the situation here will be different in that, first of all, we will have a Committee system which will give a certain degree of control of the Executive, and the Executive Committee itself will give a degree of control over the functions of the First and Deputy First Ministers. The Committee did not find that entirely satisfactory, and this is something that we will have to come back to.

I should also say that, obviously, the First and Deputy First Ministers would have to have won the confidence of their own parties in respect of any proposals they intended to make; they would also have to have won the support of the House. So the First and Deputy First Ministers will not be free agents, able to conduct business as they please; they will have to have the support and confidence of the House.

I would like to thank Nigel Dodds for his kind remarks, particularly in relation to Denis Arnold and Murray Barnes, whose work has been outstanding. The House owes them a debt of gratitude.

Mr Dodds also referred to the additional Initial Standing Orders which the Committee looked at but which disappeared - I think there will be more about that shortly.

In relation to the parallel-consent requirement, I believe that that flows naturally from the agreement, and I can deal only with the Standing Orders aspect of that. I think the Standing Orders we have adopted properly reflect what was agreed in the Good Friday Agreement.

If, in his remarks about foreign languages, Mr Dodds intended to imply that Irish is a foreign language for all Members, I would regard that as unfortunate. Obviously it is not, and if he did intend to imply that, he is making foreigners out of a great many Members.

Nigel Dodds also raised the question of the functions of junior Ministers and the need for their functions to be scrutinised. He pointed out that Committees set up by the Assembly itself will not necessarily have the same powers as the departmental Committees. We need to look at that in some detail and come up with proposals which can be put before the House.

Jim Wells raised the question of extempore speaking in the House, and, in a remarkable tour de force, covered the whole question of speaking from notes and the impact of time limitation on speeches. Over a period of time, convention and usage will lead to a much more satisfactory situation than the one that has arisen from time to time when Members get up and read from prepared scripts. I do not regard that as particularly satisfactory, but you will remember, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, that I and the other joint Chairman, Fred Cobain, raised this matter with you. It is extremely difficult to know how one could legislate for that in Standing Orders.

However, I promise not to breathe a word to anyone - and I think everybody will undertake to do the same - about Mr Wells listening to RTE.

12.15 pm

Main Question, as amended, put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 84; (Nationalist 31, Unionist 47, Other 6); Noes 0.

AYES

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Ms Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Dr Joe Hendron, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Mrs Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Donovan McClelland, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Danny O'Connor, Ms Dara O'Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Mrs Sue Ramsey, Ms Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Unionist

Dr Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Sir Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, Rev William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mrs Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Rt Hon David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Other

Mrs Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Ms Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson.

NOES

None.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Eighty-four Members voted for the motion, and none against. This being a majority of Unionists, a majority of Nationalists and the majority of the Assembly as a whole, the motion is overwhelmingly carried.

Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

This Assembly takes note of the report by the Committee on Standing Orders and further notes that the Standing Orders, once approved by the Assembly, shall be renumbered where necessary, punctuated and proofed to ensure consistent language.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It was my intention, as usual, to suspend the sitting at this point until 2.00 pm, but I must seek some guidance from the House because Members have not yet received the marshalled list of amendments. The staff are still working to put them in proper order, and I am advised that they will be available by 1.00 pm. Suspensions can only be by leave of the Assembly, so we must all agree on whether we wish to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm or perhaps until 2.30 pm or to 3.00 pm. The later time would provide an opportunity to study the 87 amendments in some detail. Larger parties in particular may be able to give guidance to their members.

Mr McCartney:

I propose that we suspend the sitting until 2.30 pm. It is preferable that the entire House have copies of the amendments and have at least half an hour to consider them. That would enable us to continue without the interruption of distributing material.

Mr McGrady:

We will not have the 87 amendments until 1.00 pm. Some of us eat lunch, and I suggest that at least another hour up to 3.00 pm would be required to do any sort of justice to understanding the 87 amendments, some of which may be quite complex. I suggest suspending the sitting until 3.00 pm.

Mr P Robinson:

The House should bear in mind the fact that additional time at this stage will have to be added at some other stage. It should be possible for officials to provide within the next 15 minutes or 30 minutes a marshalled list of the amendments for the first six Standing Orders. While we are proceeding with those they can prepare the rest. If that were done we could recommence at 2.00 pm.

The First Minister (Designate):

I regret to say that I disagree with Mr McGrady. Waiting until 3.00 pm would lose too much time. I would be quite comfortable with 2.00 or 2.30 .

12.30 pm

If Mr Robinson's suggestion can be progressed, 2.00 pm is feasible. If not, and we are waiting for the entire marshalled list, we will have to go with Mr McCartney's position. However, waiting until 3.00 pm would leave us desperately short of time.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It should be possible to have the full list of marshalled amendments within the next half-hour. Having put them all down, the staff have to proof read them. That is time consuming but it is virtually complete. The printing will take a little time. It should be available to Members by 1 o'clock.

Mr McGrady:

With regard to saving time, I accept the points made by the Member for East Belfast and by Mr Trimble. Some 70 of the 87 amendments are in Mr Robinson's name and, although he already knows what they are about, we have no knowledge of them whatever. That is a substantial advantage. I am prepared to withdraw my proposition on the clear understanding that should the complexity of the amendments make it awkward for my party fully to assess their potential, I will move for a further adjournment.

Mr Ervine:

If Mr Robinson's proposal is accepted we will have the first six Standing Orders to go on with. As we are debating those six, how can I as a member of a small party assess the future amendments that we will be debating? Mr McGrady's suggestion of 3 o'clock is eminently sensible.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

We have several propositions. I need to seek the leave of the Assembly and there must be agreement or there will be no break for lunch. That would be a tragedy.

I propose that the sitting be suspended until 2.30 pm. The marshalled list of amendments should be available by 1.00 pm, and if at any point in the consideration of the Standing Orders and the amendments it is clear that there is a problem about complexity or other matters, I will accept requests for adjournments of up to 15 minutes in respect of any particular problem.

The sitting was, by leave, suspended from 12.33 pm until 2.30 pm.

Mr McGrady:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. My original proposal that the sitting be suspended until 3.00 pm, which was rejected, was based on the premise that we would receive the list of amendments by 1.00 pm. In fact, we did not receive details of the amendments until 2.05 or 2.10 - an hour later. I therefore request a further suspension of at least 30 minutes to give us a chance to study the list. Given that we have 87 fairly complex amendments, even that time may not be sufficient.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Details of the groupings of amendments are available in the Rotunda, though many Members may not yet have seen them.

I ask for the Assembly's agreement to a further suspension of 30 minutes, as proposed by Mr McGrady.

The First Minister (Designate):

Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I would like to assure Mr McGrady that most of the amendments are of a nit-picking nature or relate to minor textual changes. We should be able to work our way through them fairly quickly.

The sitting was, by leave, suspended from 2.31 pm until 3.01 pm

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I trust that all Members have now received the marshalled list of amendments and the groups. The amendments are numbered in the order in which they were received by the Business Office, but they are marshalled in the order in which they relate to the Standing Orders. The first amendment on the list is number 42, and it comes first because it relates to Standing Order 3(5) and there are no amendments in relation to Standing Order 1 or 2. The marshalled list will be worked through in the order that is shown, albeit the numbers of the amendments refer to when they were received by the Business Office.

Mr P Robinson:

Further to that ruling, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I thought that you might have more time to consider the matter of the errata. You say that Standing Orders 1 and 2 have no amendments attached to them, but they do under the errata. Standing Order 2 has a change, but if it is covered by the amendment that was made part of the substantive motion this morning, I think Members could accept it as having been passed - depending on your ruling.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am content to rule that the amendment that was passed in respect of item 3 will subsume all those matters that are referred to in the errata, which were supplied with the Committee's report. All the amendments in the errata will therefore be accepted and actioned on the basis of the amendment to item 3.

The groupings of amendments, which Members have received, refer to the groups of Standing Orders in the compendium. I have not sought to produce any new groupings but have simply taken the sections in the compendium and grouped the amendments so that they relate to the groups of Standing Orders. They are ordered in relation to the individual Standing Orders.

Group 1 covers the first six Standing Orders relating to preliminary arrangements. The amendments which relate to those are amendments 42, 85A, 85B, 41, 40, 38 and 39, and they form the first group on the list of groupings of amendments. Any Member not having a list of groupings can obtain a copy from the Doorkeepers in the rotunda.

When we debate each group of amendments which refers to the group of Standing Orders, the proposers of amendments should speak in the order called. I would request proposers to refer to as many amendments as possible - in some cases it might be possible to refer to all of the amendments in that group. For example, Mr Robinson, in addressing group one, will speak first to amendment 42, but it may also be possible for him to deal with amendments 41, 40, 38 and 39, or to as many of them as is possible. Mr Neeson, or one of the other proposers may speak to both 85A and 85B if it is possible for them to do so.

I do not rule that Members must address all of the amendments in a group. While that may be possible in group one it is very unlikely that it will be possible in group two or in the group of amendments that relate to the Standing Orders of Committees, where there are very substantial numbers of amendments. It would simply not be possible to deal with those within the 10 minutes.

Mr P Robinson:

What is the consequence of your suggestion if Members attempt to do that and fail? Does it mean that they will not be able to speak to their own amendments?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

If Members feel that they can speak to the amendment for which they are called at that point and also to two or three other amendments, which may not be substantive amendments, within the 10 minutes, which is the limit to which they can speak at any one point, then so be it. If it is not possible for the Member to deal with it then it would be better if they stood down at that point and were then called later when the other amendment comes up. If I do not deal with it in that fairly flexible way we will find ourselves having a debate on each of 87 amendments, which is not a helpful way to proceed.

Conversely, it would be just as unhelpful if Members only had 10 minutes to deal with all of the amendments in a particular group. In the case of some Members, particularly the Member who has raised the question, and in respect of a number of the groups, that would clearly be unsatisfactory and unfair.

I am trying to encourage Members to get as much as they can into each speech. It is to be hoped that we will deal with things in a thoughtful and flexible manner.

Before putting the Question on any Standing Order where there is an amendment I will ask "Is the amendment moved or not moved?" This will give Members an opportunity to treat their amendment as a probing amendment or to be influenced by the tenor of the debate and to either to withdraw or not move their amendment.

If the amendment is moved and there is any dissent I will have no option but to let the House divide so that we can measure the level of cross-community support. It is very difficult to do anything else if dissent is expressed at the point where an amendment, or indeed a Standing Order, is being voted upon.

I intend to try to enable the Assembly to have completed the approval and consideration of the Standing Orders and amendments up to and including those that relate to ministerial appointments, that is, up to and including Standing Order 41, before suspending today's proceedings and resuming at 10.30 am tomorrow. We will then have dealt with about half of the Standing Orders and amendments. I trust that that will encourage us to proceed as best we can. The sooner we get that far along the road the sooner we can suspend today's sitting.

Preliminary Arrangements

TOP

The Initial Presiding Officer:

We shall begin by dealing with the amendments to Standing Orders 1 to 6.

The first amendment is No 42, which stands in the name of Mr Peter Robinson.

Mr P Robinson:

Amendment No 42 is as follows: In Standing Order 3(5) after "Chamber" insert "during sitting days".

I am not going to waste any time on dealing with what are simply tidying-up amendments. They stand on their own feet.

I assume that the amendment simply states what was intended by the Standing Order. The Standing Orders regulate the Assembly's life not just when it is sitting, but when it is not sitting, and therefore the present terms of paragraph 5 could be construed to mean that the Roll of Members is in the Chamber all the time. There are visitors to the building, and we do not want other people signing the Roll. It might be a good idea to have it taken away between sittings. This is a straightforward simple tidying-up amendment.

Amendment No 85B in the name of Mr Neeson contains a mistake. It was probably correct when it was received by the Business Office. I assume that "other" should be "Other" as in the legislation. The effect is to suggest that any other designation can be entered and that, of course, is not what the agreement proposed. It is not what the Act requires, and I suspect that we would be acting outside our legal competence.

Mr Ford:

Since the Member has specifically raised the issue, may I make it clear that in the current draft order, the word "Other" appears in quotation marks. Our amendment seeks to remove the capital O and the quotation marks.

Mr P Robinson:

That presents a difficulty because that is not what is stated. There are two mistakes here, and there are errors in other amendments. We shall point them out as each amendment is moved. I saw at least two in our amendments. Amendment No 41 contains mistakes that were not there originally. It requires the notification to be in writing, which I suspect will be a safeguard for the Speaker or any subsequent Speaker.

Amendment No 40 indicates the practice of the Assembly to date. Members may change their affiliation at any time, and if they do so they must give seven days' notification. It puts into our Standing Orders what has been our practice. It is particularly important to do that because elsewhere in the Standing Order there is reference to the identity designation and a time period of 30 days. There might have been a tendency to assume that the party affiliation should follow the same timescale. The amendment makes it clear that the period of seven days that we have applied thus far would continue to apply.

The other two amendments relate to the position of the Speaker. They are probing amendments if either of the joint Chairmen or any member of the Committee wanted to report on the thinking of the Committee on the issue. My reading of the Standing Orders is that only on the first day of the sitting is it designated that the Speaker, if returned, shall be in the Chair. In his absence there can be a Deputy Speaker or the eldest Member, and there will always be such a person. But they will act only for the business to be transacted in the first day, and the Standing Order does not show a continuing role.

There may be assumptions about that, and the amendment seeks to remove them and make the provisions more solid. If we cannot agree on the election of a Speaker, we can elect a Deputy Speaker or Speakers and they, in turn or the Deputy Speaker could take the Chair until a Speaker is elected. If we cannot elect either a Deputy Speaker or a Speaker, we are down to the eldest Member. Perhaps I may put your mind as ease, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, by saying that those circumstances relate to the procedure at the first meeting of a new Assembly. We are dealing with what happens after the next election.

3.15 pm

It is necessary that we be fairly clear about the procedures. We do not have a satisfactory set of circumstances at present. If we do not define the procedures clearly we could have a less satisfactory set of circumstances where we could not elect a Speaker and would have no procedure to deal with the business that the Speaker would transact, apart from presiding over Assembly sittings. I think that that covers everything in the first section. Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I am looking for assurance. If that is the case, I will formally move the first amendment.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Mr Sean Neeson.

Mr Ford rose.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Mr Ford will speak on Mr Neeson's behalf.

Mr Ford:

I gave my name this morning, but I suspect that it has been lost among all the paperwork.

I want to refer briefly to the amendments which stand in the name of Mr P Robinson, and in the spirit of charity with which he referred to ours I would like to give my party's full agreement to his first three amendments. We have some doubts about the issue of getting a Speaker by the back door. After the next election there is a danger that the oldest Member might find himself stuck in the chair for longer than might be healthy for him. However, given that Mr P Robinson has described those as probing amendments, we shall listen with interest to any response which comes from Standing Orders Committee.

I want to speak to what I thought was one amendment and now stands as two amendments - 85A and 85B. The net effect of those would be to leave out four sets of inverted commas, but those inverted commas go to the heart of our problem, which is the whole issue of identity and each person's right to define his or her identity. We have already had a minor row about how some Members designated themselves. The Standing Order is based on the Good Friday Agreement. Paragraph 6 of strand one refers to nationalist, unionist or other, with lower case letters and no quotation marks.

The Northern Ireland Act 1998 refers to designated Nationalist and designated Unionist, with lower case "d", capital "N" and capital "U" and no quotation marks. The Initial Standing Orders from the Secretary of State similarly use capital letters but no quotation marks. The difference between the word "Other" without inverted commas and the word "Other" with inverted commas, as it appears in this draft Standing Order, is fundamental. The Alliance Party believes that every Member has the right to define herself or himself. This is quite clear in the Agreement, in the Act, in the Initial Standing Orders and in the current draft, as long as one defines oneself as either Nationalist or Unionist.

It might be thought slightly bizarre that Members of the House, elected on behalf of Sinn Féin or the SDLP, can designate themselves Unionist but that is their right. Similarly, any Member of one of the many parties with "Unionist" in their title can designate himself or herself as Nationalist. That is the current position, but the right of self-designation is no less than the right of self-determination. Every Member must have the right to designate his or her own identity. It is a gross insult to Members from my party and, indeed, other Members who do not put their primary identity in terms of the ancient quarrel to say that we cannot choose our own designation but must adopt the meaningless and offensive term "Other".

Are we to be regarded as what South Africans used to describe as "non-white" because we are neither orange nor green? It is not only Alliance Members or others in the centre who will be affected. Some Members have already designated themselves as Nationalist/Irish Republican, and in the future some Members may wish to define a particular form of Unionism. Neither would be permitted under the draft Standing Order which specifies a single word. Anything other than the single word "Nationalist" or the single word "Unionist" could not be regarded as fitting that designation.

The proposed Standing Order is, however, more than just offensive to some of us. In demanding the use of the term "Other," it contradicts the Good Friday Agreement and also the Act, which is specifically for the purposes of implementing the Agreement. The Agreement and the Act lay down circumstances in which votes are counted which depend upon the votes of Nationalists and the votes of Unionists. There is no specific counting of the votes of those who do not fit into those two designations.

Therefore there is absolutely no reason to specify how other Members should designate themselves if they do not wish to be regarded as Nationalist or Unionist. Attempting to specify how others designate themselves appears more than a little arrogant.

The draft Standing Order is contrary to the European framework convention on the protection of national minorities which was ratified by the UK in January 1998 and came into force in February of that year - that is before the Good Friday Agreement.

If this draft Standing Order is approved by the Assembly, the next Alliance Member to take a seat will have no choice but to force a determination of the legality of the Standing Order. Standing Orders, I repeat, can only be made within the bounds set out by the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Act uses the terms "designated Nationalist" and "designated Unionist", which are defined in Chapter 47, clause 4(5). It does not use the term "Other", either with or without inverted commas, and the use of the term "Other", with a capital letter and in inverted commas, in the draft Standing Orders is therefore inconsistent with the Act. It is wrong, and it is ultra vires.

It would hardly be an advertisement for pluralism and new relationships in Northern Ireland if this Standing Order were held to be illegal under any aspects of human-rights legislation, whether domestic or European, because a few inverted commas infringed the rights of a minority of members. I urge Members to amend this Standing Order of their own volition to bring it into line with the agreement rather than wait for the courts to do so.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I have received no further requests from Members to speak on the amendments in the first group. We will therefore proceed to vote on the first group of Standing Orders and amendments.

Standing Order 1 (The Speaker) agreed to.

Standing Order 2 (Notice of First Meeting of New Assembly) agreed to.

Standing Order 3 (Procedure at First Meeting of New Assembly).

Amendment (No 42) made: In paragraph (5), after "Chamber", insert "during sitting days" - [Mr Peter Robinson]

Amendment (No 85A) proposed: In paragraph (7), line 2, leave out from "being" and insert "nationalist, unionist or other". - [Mr Neeson]

Question put That the amendment be made.

The Assembly proceeded to a Division.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

May I have order, please. Will Members please refrain from speaking during Divisions except when responding to their names and make sure that those responses can be heard. It is not always easy for the Clerks to hear what is being said when Members are speaking in different languages.

The Assembly having divided: Ayes 39; Noes 52.

AYES

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Ms Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Ms Michelle Gildernew, Ms Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, John Kelly, Mrs Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Donavan McClelland, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Malloy, Conor Murphy, Mrs Mary Nelis, Danny O'Connor, Ms Dara O'Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Mrs Sue Ramsay, Ms Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Other

Mrs Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Ms Monica McWilliams, Ms Jane Morrice.

NOES

Unionist

Dr Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Ms Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Mrs Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Sir Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Sir John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, Rev William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mrs Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Rt Hon David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The total number of votes was 91. The number of Ayes was 39 (42%). The number of Nationalist votes was 33 (100% Aye). The number of Unionist votes was 52 (0% Aye).

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment (No 85B) proposed: In paragraph (7), line 3, leave out " "Other" "and insert "other". - [Mr Neeson]

Question That the amendment be made put and negatived.

Mr Ford:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. During my speech, I questioned whether that Standing Order was legal in terms of the Act. Can you tell me how I could obtain a ruling on that before we take the final vote on these Standing Orders, presumably tomorrow?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

You have raised the question. A number of issues are involved in this. Even when the Assembly takes its vote, that is not, in itself, a determination of the Standing Orders prior to devolution. You can take it for granted that I will be asking for legal advice myself, but that does not preclude you or any other Member also seeking legal advice. Legal advice, of course, is what it says - advice, not a determination.

Amendment (No 41) made: In paragraph (8), after "notification", insert "in writing is submitted". - [Mr P Robinson]

Amendment (No 40) made: After paragraph (9) insert the following new paragraph:

"A Member may change his or her party affiliation at any time. Any such change takes effect 7 days after notification in writing is submitted to the Speaker." - [Mr P Robinson]

Standing Order 3, as amended, agreed to.

Standing Order 4 (Election of Speaker)

Amendment (No 38) made: After paragraph (6) insert the following new paragraph:

"Where the Assembly is unable to elect a Speaker under the foregoing provisions of this Standing Order, but where a Deputy Speaker has been elected by virtue of Standing Order 5, the Deputy Speaker shall act as Speaker. In the case of more than one Deputy Speaker being elected they shall act in turn until a Speaker is elected."- [Mr P Robinson]

Amendment (No 39) made: After paragraph 4(6) insert the following new paragraph:

"Where the Assembly is unable to elect either a Speaker, under the foregoing provisions of this Standing Order, or a Deputy Speaker, by virtue of Standing Order 5, the Chair shall be taken, until a Speaker or Deputy Speaker is elected, by an Acting Speaker, who shall be the eldest Member of the Assembly." - [Mr P Robinson]

Standing Order 4, as amended, agreed to.

Standing Order 5 (Deputy Speaker) agreed to.

Standing Order 6 (Procedure when Office of Speaker becomes vacant) agreed to.

Operations of the Assembly

TOP

The Initial Presiding Officer:

We now come to the second group of Standing Orders and amendments. I want to draw attention to two matters in this regard. First - and I am indebted to one Member who pointed this out to me earlier - the list includes two amendments numbered 26. The first should be numbered 36.

With regard to amendments 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B, if these are all moved, then we will come first, of course, to the vote on amendment 1A. If amendments 1A and 2A are passed, we need not move to amendments 1B and 2B as they are alternative proposals. However, if amendments. 1A and 2A are not passed, amendments 1B and 2B may be moved.

The first amendment is in the name of Mr Peter Robinson.

Mr P Robinson:

The purpose of amendment No 37 is to add at the end of paragraph (2) of Standing Order 9 the following words:

"The business adjourned shall be the first business when the Assembly next sits".

It would be difficult to cover all these issues in 10 minutes. I hope at some stage to speak to the other amendments. There is the further difficulty that there are many issues of more substance in this group, and we might be juggling too many balls at one time. That concerns me.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

What the Member says is perfectly reasonable, not only in respect of this group but in respect of the group further down the list, and particularly the group of amendments on committees. I ask Members to speak to the number of amendments that they can reasonably deal with in 10 minutes. We must try to be reasonable on these matters.

Mr P Robinson:

Thank you for that ruling, Mr Initial Presiding Officer.

The first amendment in my name in this group relates to the issue of the quorum, and refers to the loss of a quorum during a debate and the possible adjournment of the Assembly. I leave myself open to advice from the joint Chairmen or any members of the Committee, but as I understand it, a Member could wait for some time to bring a matter that is important at least to him, to the Assembly only to find that it is not of the same importance to others who leave the Member almost alone in the Chamber. The quorum is lost, and Members are not interested in returning to the Chamber. Is the business lost or can the Member have his day when the Assembly resumes?

I suspect that a quorum will not be a problem for the four major parties as each of them is capable of providing a quorum, and can do so when they have an interest in the business. It will be more difficult for smaller parties that could not provide a quorum and could be denied the opportunity to deal with an issue. A similar principle is dealt with in a later amendment to Standing Order 16, which is a delaying motion when a motion is made for the adjournment of a debate. In that case the adjournment is caused not by the loss of a quorum, but through the Question being put. That would be a mechanism that a party or parties could use to avoid a vote during the life of the Assembly.

People who bring a motion or subject to the Assembly have the right to have it decided, irrespective of whether it is decided in their favour. They have a right to a determination, and it is necessary for us to ensure that the Standing Orders clearly provide the right of Members to have a vote and to have the time to make their case. The aim of those two amendments is to ensure that if the House is adjourned for one reason or another, its first business at its next sitting is the business that was adjourned. That might make less likely the use of procedure as a device to curtail debate.

The next amendment deals with public business, and I am again open to advice from the members of the Committee. I assume that we attach some importance to the role of statutory committees. We would consider their reports to be of such significance that they would be included in public business along with stages of Bills and notices of motion. That is a simple, tidying amendment to include statutory committee reports.

3.45 pm

Members may consider that the reports from other Committees should also be included. I have not considered that, but the Standing Orders Committee may wish to consider it at a later stage.

The next amendment affects Standing Order 15(4). I suggest simply taking out the last two words, which indicate that one can only withdraw an amendment during debate. An amendment is usually withdrawn at the end of a debate, and my proposed amendment would simply have the effect of allowing a Member to withdraw an amendment before a Division was called.

My amendment to Standing Order 16(2) takes away the right of the Speaker to make proposals. The Speaker simply puts a Question; he does not propose it. I was pleased to hear that you, Sir, when explaining the various amendments, encouraged everyone to support Standing Order 26. I think his exact remarks were "you can only approve of 26 once", and I hope that Members follow his advice. So my amendment to 16(2) would have the effect of replacing "propose" with "put", and that part of the Standing Order would then read "decline to put the Question". There is a similar drafting amendment to be found later on.

The next amendment deals with statements. The Committee spent some time considering the amount of time to be allowed for questions on statements. As it stands, the Speaker must allow questions on a statement for up to one hour if there are Members still wanting to ask questions.

The Speaker must be given some discretion in this matter. My amendments would introduce two changes. The first amendment would have the effect of allowing questions to last for no more than one hour, and the second would allow the Speaker discretion to curtail the amount of time subject to the content of the statement. If it were a statement of substance, the Speaker would determine that it was a matter on which questions should last for as much of an hour as Members needed for the matters to be elucidated. The Speaker might determine that a statement was not a matter of such importance as to warrant the full hour.

At the moment there are proposals for 10 Departments as well as the central Department. Each of the Ministers could decide, over his cornflakes, to make a statement that day, and we could therefore have ten statements being made in any one day. Do Members really want to have ten hours of questions? No is the answer to that. There must be some discretion on the part of the Speaker to deal with that matter in a way that would reflect the wishes of the House and the importance of the statements being made. I expect that the Executive Committee will organise its business so that we do not have ten statements on one day, but if the Assembly is only going to have two sitting days in the one week, we could still have, on a very frequent basis, a number of statements on any one day.

The next amendment relates to Standing Order 18(5). I have decided, in Churchillian fashion, that this is something up with which I shall not put. As the Standing Order ends with a preposition, I am suggesting a change to correct the grammar.

There are only two amendments that I have not touched on. The Standing Orders do not put any requirement upon a Minister to respond to an Adjournment debate. There is a general view in the Assembly that if a Member takes the trouble to bring forward an issue of importance to him, and perhaps to others, the relevant Minister of the Northern Ireland Executive should have an allocated time slot in which to respond. I suggest 10 minutes, but I am not hard and fast on that. That amendment is put forward on the basis that a Minister should have the right to respond to issues concerning his or her departmental responsibilities.

Finally, and very briefly, I will touch on the matter of questions being placed. As the Standing Orders stand, questions will be taken in the order in which they are put down. This practice did not serve us well in another place because Government Ministers ensured that all their Back-Benchers placed questions down immediately, leaving them with a friendly set of questions. Were questions to be decided by ballot, held by the Clerk or the Speaker, that would be fair to every Member.

The following amendments stood on the Order Paper in the name of the First Minister (Designate):

No 1A: In Standing Order 10(2), line 3, leave out "10.30 am to 6.00 pm" and insert "2.00 pm to 8.00 pm".

No 1B: In Standing Order 10(2), line 3, leave out "10.30 am to 6.00 pm" and insert "11.30 am to 7.00 pm".

No 2A: In Standing Order 10(2), line 5, leave out "10.30 am to 6.00 pm" and insert "2.00 pm to 8.00 pm".

No 2B: In Standing Order 10(2), line 5, leave out "10.30 am to 6.00 pm" and insert "11.30 am to 7.00 pm".

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>