The Initial Presiding Officer:

I would like to remind Members that we should refer to each other using whatever title or office is appropriate, in whatever language, and not just by surnames alone.

Mr Weir:

As someone who, to use the analogy used by the Member for South Down, was not so much a lieutenant as the defendant in a recent court martial, I feel that I can bring a reasonably independent perspective to this issue. Some might suggest that I found myself with a weapon by my side, but that the police are not investigating any suspicious circumstances.

I find a great deal of merit in the proposals that have been put forward in terms of amendment 59. I take on board the comments made by, among others, Mr McFarland and Mr Haughey that there will be a re-examination of the issue. I welcome that. The amendment, as drafted, is perhaps not perfect, but in the absence of any other specific proposals on the matter the Assembly should support it.

The Assembly represents a rather unique form of government, which is designed to include some 80% of Members in a "Government party". That has its merits and also its problems. One of the weaknesses with the Government's being so overwhelmingly supported in the Assembly is that there is a lack of coherent opposition. The Alliance Party, with the greatest respect to it, is the largest opposition party in the Assembly, and I am sure that it will provide constructive opposition, but it is only a very small party.

Therefore the only way in which the normal notion of government and opposition can operate is by a very strong committee system, with strong Back-Benchers exercising control over the Ministers. It is utterly illogical to suggest that the vast range of functions, spread over the ten Departments, will be scrutinised - as they should be - while no method has as yet been put forward to scrutinise the most important Department, that of the First and Deputy First Ministers.

If the situation were akin to that at Westminster, and the First and Deputy First Ministers retained essentially only the role of Prime Minister, one could perhaps see a degree of logic in not having a specific scrutiny committee. However, there have been allocated to the First and Deputy First Ministers, I think with some logic, powers over issues such as equality and certain finance matters. Given this, it is equally logical that there should be proper scrutiny of these issues.

For example, there are grey areas between the economic policy unit of the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers and the responsibilities of the Minister for Finance. It would be entirely illogical to scrutinise fully a function of the Finance Minister but not to scrutinise that same function if it were performed by the junior Minister in the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers. In the latter, it would either receive no scrutiny or perhaps, under the proposals that will come forward, a lesser degree of scrutiny. To use the classical analogy, no one should be above suspicion, not even Caesar's wife.

To go down the route suggested by the Standing Orders, and not have direct scrutiny of the First and Deputy First Ministers, is to leave a very black hole.

Mr Haughey:

As Mr Weir said, this is going to be a unique form of administration. That being so, it is not appropriate to import notions of government and opposition. Members here will belong to parties which are in the administration and, in a sense, also in opposition. The scrutiny committees may well take a form that will result in Ministers getting a rougher ride from members of their own party than from members of other parties. That would constitute an opposition process.

Mr Weir:

I agree that we should not import certain things from elsewhere. At Westminster there is no Select Committee to deal specifically with the Prime Minister's affairs. Members are in a different situation here, and there should be proper scrutiny of the issue.

In terms of opposition, there needs to be proper scrutiny. While some degree of opposition will be created by parties which are also in government - perhaps in different Departments - we need to strengthen that role so that Back-Benchers can ensure that proper democratic scrutiny takes place.

As I have indicated, if proposals come forward - and I will certainly accept the thinking that even this amendment is not perfect - we should look at them. There may well be members of the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist parties who feel that the current arrangements suit them in some regards because that is their parties' position at the moment. However, in addition to what has already been said about ensuring that there is proper scrutiny and that the Assembly should be able to tell the public that all matters are being properly considered, I caution those members of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP who feel that these arrangements suit them to take a more long-term view.

At the moment the First Minister (Designate) is a member of the Ulster Unionist Party and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) is a member of the SDLP. However, no one can guarantee that that will be the position in the future, and that is not to draw any conclusions about future events. If any Member can tell me precisely how everything is going to go over the next five to ten years, I will let him complete my lottery ticket on Saturday.

The reality is that none of us can foretell the future, and any party, whether it be Unionist, Nationalist, Conservative or Labour, that assumes that it will always be the largest party in any bloc is taking a very arrogant view of its electorate, and parties that do that can head for a fall. We should look at the situation in which one or other of the main parties was not the largest party. If the Ulster Unionist Party turns out not to be the largest party in the future, and this goes for the SDLP as well, it will be extremely difficult for either party then to say that there should be a proper scrutiny committee for the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers. Power will then have passed to another party.

I caution Members to look at the long-term objective. We have to be fair in order to ensure that we do have proper accountable democracy. There has to be proper scrutiny of the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers, whether it comes about by means of this amendment, which is the best one available at the moment, or whether it comes about by means of other proposals which will come forward via the Committee on Standing Orders. We must not have the black hole of an unaccountable Government.

Mr Durkan:

Much has been made of the need for scrutiny of the functions of the First and Deputy First Ministers at the Centre.

Mr Wells:

I find it very suspicious that all the lieutenants have been dragooned into supporting the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate). Are we going to hear the views of any of the Ulster Unionist or SDLP Back-Benchers? Why is it that we only hear from the "Yes" men in both camps?

Mr Durkan:

Thank you, Jim. This is the first occasion on which I have actually sat on the Front Bench, and not on the basis of being a "Yes" man - that is not a precondition for my getting here. I prefer to sit on the Back Benches. As everyone knows, that is where I always sit in the Chamber.

Let me address the issues raised. Is there a need for scrutiny? Yes. There is no doubt or argument about that. All Members supported amendment 27 which provides that any Member of the Executive Committee - not a departmental Minister - responsible for a matter which is the subject of an Adjournment debate shall respond to it. That will include the First and Deputy First Ministers. If we were minded to say that everything that was done by the First and Deputy First Ministers was entirely up to them and not subject to any reference to this House, we would be opposing that amendment.

Standing Orders also provide for weekly question times. The balance of those question times is obviously something which we are going to have to look at and determine. One would think that very regular and significant scrutiny, and questioning, of the First and Deputy First Ministers will form part of that.

12.15 pm

Mr P Robinson:

I suggest that the Member should not speak too loudly about his desire to remain on the Back Benches; it might be the wrong time to do so.

He identifies one mechanism, and there are many within Standing Orders, which would allow scrutiny of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the House. But is that a satisfactory way of doing it? It is a most untidy way. It would be far better to have it all contained within a committee.

Mr Durkan:

If the Member would allow me to continue, I have been generous in giving way so far.

That is one area. The allegation has been made that we have been trying to keep the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister immune from any check, any scrutiny, any accountability. I am simply pointing out that that is not so.

Secondly, with regard to functions remitted to the First and Deputy First Ministers, most of what they do relates to the particular operating needs of the Executive Committee and those requirements that arise specifically from the Committee. Any other function will be discharged on the basis of approval of the House. That should be remembered and recognised.

Thirdly, an argument has been made that all sorts of functions have been "hoovered" to the Centre. However, when one looks at those functions, they are seen to be the normal functions of the Centre. If one tries to identify the functions that have come from existing Government Departments, one finds that only a handful are currently remitted to specific Departments. The case has been made that all sorts of things were brought in, but one would be very hard pushed to find more than a handful of functions that have been taken from particular Departments into the Centre.

One is the issue of equality, which is currently discharged by the Department of Economic Development. We have already seen legislation passed elsewhere that gives much wider terms of reference and application than could ever have been covered by that Department. The idea of equality now encompasses more than employment and the provision of goods and services. It would have been wrong in those circumstances to have allowed the issue of equality to remain with the Department of Economic Development or its equivalent.

Similarly, community relations came under the Department of Education where it did not fare too well in the eyes of many people working in that area. That Department has now been broken up and reorganised, and no strong argument can be made for that function remaining there. It should move to the Centre.

Public appointments policy is another area which properly lies in the Centre and, indeed, was there previously. Most of the functions that lie with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister relate to the requirements of the Centre and of the Executive Committee. We argued in the negotiations for and stand by the concept of the Executive Committee as an inclusive exercise. We want it to be inclusive on a proportional basis. We want the Executive Committee to work as a committee. We want it to be a live and significant entity. That was the difference between many of the parties during the talks.

We argued very strongly for a significant Executive Committee. The circumstances of the negotiations required that part of the compromise was that particular functions and responsibilities for the co-ordination and operation of the Executive Committee be discharged by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Thus in that sense they are accountable to the Executive Committee and through the Committee to this House.

If we were to say that there has to be a specific scrutiny committee for the functions of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, that would be grand. That would make it very easy for those parties who say "We will take ministerial office but not sit on the Executive Committee. We will send our people to the scrutiny committee to try to kick the traces through every matter that is before or is coming before the Executive Committee."

A Member:

Who?

Mr Durkan:

Yes, who would do that? I just wonder.

I cannot believe that I am the first to suggest that any such thoughts are creeping into the minds of any of the Members in that corner, but that is precisely what this scrutiny committee would be used for. Those parties that were not content with being able to scrutinise the business of the North/South Ministerial Council through the relevant departmental Ministers could use it to undertake a wholesale challenging exercise. It could be used, for instance, to frisk the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on details concerning the Civic Forum. That would be an abuse of such a scrutiny committee.

We have agreed the necessity for particular functions to come within the remit of the Centre and that they be subject to dedicated scrutiny committees. For example, we have already agreed that that is what must happen with the issue of equality, and when we talk about a scrutiny committee on equality, we mean one that is additional to the special committee on conformity with equality requirements referred to in the Standing Orders. That is a separate procedural device provided for in the agreement that allows for equality readings for measures that are before the House. So we are talking about there being two different committees in respect of equality issues, not none as some seem to be suggesting.

There are other issues - the Public Service Office, for instance - that rest with the Centre. The scope of that office, which will be encompassed within the Economic Policy Unit, may also be a very suitable function for a scrutiny committee to address.

Many of those functions are being placed at the Centre, not so that they will be with David Trimble and Seamus Mallon but because the Centre, rather than a specific department, is the appropriate place for them.

That does not mean that the ministerial responsibility for those functions cannot be discharged by other Ministers. The Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 specifically provides for the fact that a Minister, including the First and Deputy First Ministers, can delegate authority in respect of certain functions to another Minister or junior Minister - functions in relation to women's issues, for instance. There is nothing to prevent the First and Deputy First Ministers designating another member of the Executive Committee to be responsible for women's issues.

Under The Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, it can be done. The allegation has been made that all these issues are left with Seamus Mallon and David Trimble alone, but that is not the case. Junior Ministers can be appointed, and there is nothing stopping the First and Deputy First Ministers appointing other Ministers to discharge certain discrete elements of these functions. In that case, the idea of one scrutiny committee dealing with, potentially, a number of Ministers simply would not stand up. This deserves further and deeper consideration than the amendment allows.

Mr Dodds:

Mr Durkan did his chances of being promoted permanently to the Front Bench a power of good with that speech in support of his Deputy First Minister. I am glad to follow him and Mr Weir also, who forecast the future in a very interesting fashion.

However, he makes the point - the serious point - that we are setting the permanent Standing Orders for this Assembly and we want to get them right, no matter which party they may apply to. When Mr Robinson introduced the debate, he said that in many cases Standing Orders can be used for a party and against a party, and we do not know what circumstances may prevail on any given day.

We want to try to draw up Standing Orders that are in the best interests of individual Members, and I think that this whole issue of scrutiny goes to the very heart of the Assembly's work. Many of today's speeches were all for scrutiny. In his speech, Mr Durkan was saying "yes" to scrutiny, but the rest of it seemed to be a list of arguments as to why, at this stage, we should not proceed to set up a scrutiny committee.

Reference was made to the fact that as a result of the amendment which was agreed yesterday, Ministers can and will be called before Adjournment debates and will be asked to give answers. However, that is no substitute, in any shape or form, for having a scrutiny committee; all a Minister will do in a 10-minute speech will be to answer the points raised. Members need to be able to call them or not, as the case may be. They need to have the opportunity to call for papers, to examine in detail what Ministers are doing, and that includes the First and Deputy First Ministers.

I was surprised to hear Mr McFarland and Mr Haughey suggest that we should leave this to allow for consultation with the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate). This issue has been kicking around for some time. On 11 February, it was raised in the committee, and it was raised again on 19 February when the joint Chairmen undertook to discuss it then with the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate). On 26 February, it was reported that it had not been possible to arrange a meeting with the First Minister (Designate), but that some discussion had taken place with the Deputy First Minister (Designate). He had agreed that there was a problem and said that his officials would look at it.

To date we have had no comeback from the Office of the First Minister (Designate) and no further comeback from the Office of the Deputy First Minister (Designate). We have now reached 9 March - one month on - and this is an issue which is extremely important to the workings of this Assembly. Almost all-party concern was raised about it at the committee meetings. Some Members are understandably reluctant to have this issue taken back to the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate), the ones most affected, or to wait for a committee on procedures to deal with it.

I am concerned by Mr Ervine's suggestion that we should await legislation. It is true to say that when the Government wish to do so, they can rush legislation through very quickly, but there are other occasions when they do not wish to move so quickly, and in these instances it can be very difficult to find a slot in the timetable.

We have been given to understand that this legislation has been gone through with a fine-tooth comb by Mr Trimble's party and by Mr Hume's party, so we are understandably suspicious about how the problem arose in the first place. It cannot be by pure accident that we have been left with this problem, with the fundamental job of scrutinising the Executive functions of the First and Deputy First Ministers being messed up in this way and with no proper legislative base to enable us to set up a statutory committee to deal with the matter.

I do not believe that this was an omission or a mistake. I do not believe that parliamentary draftsmen would be guilty of this kind of mistake had they been correctly guided. We need to try to fill this gap and not simply leave it in the hope that in due course things will be put right. We have the opportunity now to try to do something. Perhaps this is a stop-gap measure, but it is better than having nothing at all in place. This is what Members need to consider.

I was staggered at the attitude of Sinn Féin. It was vehement on this issue in the committee but today one of its members said that she did not wish to support the amendment. The amendment states that a committee, such as the one proposed by Mr Robinson, shall exercise the same powers and perform the same functions as a Statutory Committee. Sinn Féin's attitude is that we should wait until we get a Statutory Committee.

Mr S Wilson:

Does the Member agree that it is even more strange that Sinn Féin, which had called for a separate equality committee, a function now of the Department of the First and Deputy First Ministers, is suddenly content that that Department, with its equality role, should not be scrutinised at all?

Mr Dodds:

The Member's point is a good one. It exposes the hypocrisy of some Members who have said that they intend to vote against this proposal which would ensure that there was scrutiny from day one of the range of functions in the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers.

Mr McElduff:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Wells:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Dodds:

No, I will not. Oh, I am sorry. I did not know where the request was coming from. I am always happy to give way, but not to members of Sinn Féin/IRA.

12.30 pm

Mr Wells:

Is it not also strange that in the six meetings of the Standing Orders Committee that I attended, the Sinn Féin representatives fought this issue tooth and nail and raised it constantly? They said that they were going to table an amendment at this stage calling for a scrutiny committee to deal with the powers controlled centrally by the First and the Deputy First Ministers. Why have they changed their minds?

Mr Dodds:

I thank the hon Member for that intervention.

I want to deal with the issue that Mr McFarland raised. He said that some functions had been taken into the Offices of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister after the Act had been published. This is precisely the point. It is even more suspicious that this should have happened after the Act was published. The Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, in article 8, paragraph 1, makes it clear that

"The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, may by order -

(a) assign to any Department; or

(b) transfer to any Department from any other Department,

such functions that appear to them to be appropriate for such assignment or transfer."

The reality is that even the functions that have been assigned to Departments at present can be taken out of those Departments by order of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and taken into their Offices. It would be quite wrong to have this power residing in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister without having, from day one, the scrutiny mechanisms set up and in place. Junior Ministers who may be appointed can be in those Offices as well, and their responsibilities will not be subject to scrutiny either.

It is essential that we do something about this. It would be incomprehensible to argue, on the one hand, that we agree there should be scrutiny and, on the other, that we do not want it yet. Let us have scrutiny from day one and when the Committee on Procedures is set up it can look at it again to see if improvements and changes need to be made. Why leave a vacuum? Why have a situation where every other Minister is subject to proper Statutory Committee scrutiny except the First Minister and Deputy First Minister?

It is simply illogical to say "We believe in scrutiny, it is so important, it is vital, but we are going to have a gap, wait for legislation, wait for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to come back to us on this - if they ever do - and then act." Why not act now? Why not put in place arrangements which will kick the issue off and allow us to get down to work as soon as there is some sort of devolved Administration and when the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister start to exercise these powers?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There are still several Members on both sides of the argument who wish to speak, followed by the votes. I seek leave of the Assembly to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The sitting was, by leave, suspended from 12.33 pm until 2.01 pm.

Mr Byrne:

Mr P Robinson's proposed amendment is timely. I welcome debate on the issue of a scrutiny committee of the Assembly to advise, assist and possibly to moderate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the discharge of their Executive functions. The House must examine how the Government are to operate and take decisions given the individual and collective views of the Members.

The statutory departmental committees will be a vital element of our new political structures, critical to the success of the Assembly. The all-party committees in particular will give Back-Benchers a positive, constructive and meaningful role in policy formulation and in examining the performance of Ministers. They will provide for a more inclusive and collective Assembly view of the discharge of each Department's functions on behalf of the people.

The Executive Committee, comprising the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the 10 departmental Ministers, will be, in effect, a four-party body made up of the Ulster Unionist Party, the DUP, Sinn Féin and ourselves. Surely this Executive Committee will have to function in a collective way. Surely the DUP Ministers, or the Sinn Féin Ministers, or indeed any other Ministers, will argue a strong case in that committee to make sure that fair and equitable decisions are taken.

If they do not question the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and make them think seriously about the consequences of any initiatives they take, we will have a major problem even before we get this new political vehicle on the road. I have every confidence that the Executive Committee will function effectively, without the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister having to contend with a specific, statutory committee of the House. The collective decisions of the Executive Committee could be torpedoed by a statutory scrutiny committee of the Centre, and that would be dangerous and troublesome.

A Minister could argue his case through his departmental committee, and then through the Executive Committee, and have his proposal accepted as Government policy.

However, the committee to scrutinise the work of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister could then decide to tackle the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister and disable the whole policy decision. At best this could be cumbersome and awkward, but I am afraid that it could be very destructive to the Government's performance. I firmly believe that a scrutiny committee as proposed by Mr Robinson could end up strangling the effective operation of the entire Executive Committee's decisions.

We all know that individual Ministers must act in the best interests of agreed Government policy, made, in our case, by way of collective decision making. It would be farcical if Back-Benchers on a scrutiny committee of the Centre tried to overturn the Government's collective decision through a strong challenge to and decision against the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister. I understand the sentiments of those who would like to see a specialist scrutiny committee, but as we embark upon setting up these new structures it would be stupid to strangle the effective operation of the new Government that we are trying to establish.

I know that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have been given certain functions at the Centre, but some of those, as was said earlier by my Colleague, could eventually be directed to some other Ministers. Some Ministers, for example, could be charged with the responsibility of looking after women's affairs. I am quite confident that within the departmental committees there will be strong and effective discussion, but the vital committee for the overall functioning of the Government will be the Executive Committee.

The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have to act in co-ordination and reflect the collective decisions of the Executive Committee. Every Minister in that Committee will argue the case strongly, and I hope that a collective decision will be made. If we impose another committee purely to examine the functions and deliberations of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, we could make this whole operation unworkable.

Mr Ervine:

I have some disquiet about this and hope that the Member will share it. I thank him for giving way.

I am a member of the Standing Orders Committee. There was a serious debate on this issue in the Standing Orders Committee. We spoke for a long time about a formula of words that could be incorporated in the Standing Orders showing Members that, because of the legislation, there is a gap in our provision. It is not there, and one wonders why it is not there, given that it was agreed by the members after long deliberation that a formula of words would be found and incorporated. That lends people to the belief that there may be those who do not want full scrutiny of the First and Deputy First Ministers' Offices.

Mr Byrne:

I thank the Member for his intervention. I was not a member of the Standing Orders Committee so I cannot answer for what took place or did not take place there. I am looking at this from the outside, as a Back-Bencher. Many commentators, conscious that we are setting up a smooth functioning Government - and this is a completely new experiment - keep asking me and others if this new system will work. I keep saying to them that it will work.

However, it is a new model of government that we are setting up here with a new way of taking decisions. It is an all-party system of government. Let us not shackle the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister at the outset. I feel confident that there are enough checks and balances with the statutory committees at the moment to make sure that nobody will over-exercise his executive responsibilities.

Mr Haughey:

With regard to the point that my Colleague is developing and Mr Ervine's intervention, may I point out that I chaired the last meeting of the Standing Orders Committee, and we agreed in precise terms the wording of paragraph 7:

"Concern was expressed by the Committee that important discrete executive functions of the office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister would not, under current legislation, be subject to the scrutiny of a Statutory Committee. The Committee recommends that this matter be addressed as soon as possible by the Assembly".

Mr Byrne:

I am grateful for the clarification. This is a good debate about this issue, and I thank Mr Robinson for bringing forward many of these amendments.

This one, however, is in danger of suffering from an acute case of "Committeeitis". My worry is that were we to set up this committee, we could shackle the discharge of duties at the Centre.

The Economic Policy Unit (EPU), which is at the Centre, has no statutory function as laid out in the report of the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate). Essentially it has a servicing role in relation to its work as part of the Executive Committee. Indeed, the Executive Committee itself will, I am sure, have to carry out a critical examination and formulate an effective role for the EPU once the Executive is up and running.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Please bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Byrne:

Yes. Thank you.

Mr Roche:

I support amendment 59. Mr Close referred to the sentiments expressed by Mr Robinson. In fact, Mr Robinson put forward very powerful and compelling arguments for a committee to scrutinise the core - the most powerful part of the Executive - and that is the Department of the First and Deputy First Ministers.

In the absence of any normal Opposition in the Assembly, it seems to me that that form of scrutiny is crucial. That was the point made by Mr Weir, and the only reservations I have about what I now accept as Mr Weir's very sound judgement on most matters under discussion in the Assembly is that he seemed to be designating the Alliance Party as the nearest thing to an Opposition that we have. The problem with the Alliance Party is that since it is absolutely impossible to determine what it is either for or against, it is difficult to see how it could fill that role. If I had to speak -

Mr Close:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Roche:

Yes.

Mr Close:

Would he like to tell Members where he has been for the past 24 months?

Mr Roche:

Another important consideration in respect of the type of committee suggested by this amendment is that it could remedy what I described yesterday as a fault line between the Assembly and the all-Ireland aspects of the agreement. This committee could help to give the Assembly some real influence over decision making within the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers in relation to the all-Ireland aspects of their policy.

Mr Durkan commented on that point, but it struck me that his speech consisted of comments that were entirely irrelevant to the issue. He spent a considerable amount of time outlining why the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers have the functions they have, which is not what we are discussing. We are discussing how, given that they have those functions, the Assembly can carry out an adequate scrutiny.

He expressed something that is crucial to his position, that within this scrutiny committee, there could emerge some real opposition to the all-Ireland aspects of the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers.

Given that he wants to prevent that opposition from emerging, and that the facility for that type of opposition and the scrutiny that would be involved is crucial to any authentically democratic Assembly; the trade-off is to try to minimise the democratic aspects of the Assembly in order to maximise the all-Ireland aspects.

2.15 pm

Mr Farren:

Is the Member saying that he might want to use the sort of scrutiny committee that is proposed to inhibit the exercise of the functions of the North/South Ministerial Council, irrespective of the fact that the overwhelming majority of people on this island, North and South, endorsed the co-operation between both parts of the country that was envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement?

Mr Roche:

They have not endorsed the detail of the working out of the agreement. The scrutiny committee would simply scrutinise, and it could cut two ways. It would enable the Assembly to exercise a real influence over the policies that were being pursued by the Department of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I should stress that Mr Durkan's proposal was an attempt to minimise the Assembly's democratic aspect in order to maximise the Nationalist thrust of the Department in question.

There is some political timidity by the Assembly with regard to the scrutiny committee. Members' reservations about the scrutiny committee are based on the failure to distinguish between what an Act requires and what it permits. In the initial stages of establishing the authority of the Assembly, we should use what legislation permits to maximise the status of the Assembly in relation to the Executive.

Mr Farren made the amazing suggestion that Members should not only wait until the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had time to consider the matter, which implies allowing them to make the decision for us, but that we should trust them to ensure full accountability. That is not the role of the Assembly. The Assembly should maximise its authority in relation to the Executive. Now is the time to do that. We should not rely entirely upon the Executive somehow to police itself, which, I think, is what Mr Byrne was saying. Members have an opportunity to establish the full authority of the Assembly in relation to the Executive, and the means of achieving that is contained in amendment No 59.

Mr Beggs:

I listened to the comments by Jim Wells before lunch. I am a Back-Bencher, and the only other person to speak from the Back Benches on this issue was also a member of the Ulster Unionist Party. I assure the Member and my electorate that I am able to assess issues for myself and wish to ensure that I can carry out the necessary, responsible scrutiny as a Back-Bencher.

I agree that there is a need for scrutiny of the centre. Originally, there were very limited statutory functions at the Centre, and according to the Act, there would have been no need for scrutiny of the Department of the Centre. However several additional functions have been transferred to the Centre, and there is a clear need for scrutiny of those functions.

On a wider issue, I wish to highlight the need for more frequent periods to be set aside for questioning of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Once every three or four weeks, as currently envisaged, is not sufficient.

Amendment No 59 does not propose particular scrutiny; it is much wider than that. There are no boundaries to its scrutiny. Tony Blair, my Prime Minister, does not have a committee scrutinising his every action. A scrutiny committee is needed, but it should have clear guidance on the areas of its operation. The issue of scrutiny of the Centre should go back to the Standing Orders Committee so that a new amendment may be prepared for our consideration.

Rev William McCrea:

This issue is not one that divides the Assembly into the "Yes" and "No" camps. This is not about that at all. There are those who have opinions, conscientiously and with conviction, about the agreement. Our genuinely held views about the matter under discussion differ from the views of those who hold the same opinion as we do about the agreement. They differ from us on the matter of scrutiny of the Offices of the First and the Deputy First Ministers.

The heart and crux of the matter is open and accountable government. It never ceases to amaze me how the foot soldiers of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP have been shuffling around, even squirming at times, with the Front Bench having to help some of its Members through their difficulties when any awkward question is asked. They faithfully try to save the faces of their First and Deputy First Ministers, and many do not believe what they are saying. Many of them in their heart of hearts believe in open Government, so how can they honestly say that they are trying to ensure that this is what we are getting?

Some Members have said that this will strangle the effective operation of the First and the Deputy First Ministers. The Member from West Tyrone came out with that sort of weak statement - he did not say it with conviction. If he is saying that scrutiny will shackle the First and the Deputy First Ministers, and that that should not be, should we then have shackles upon the other Ministers? Should we have shackles upon the Minister for Agriculture? Should we have shackles upon the Minister dealing with education? Or is it only certain individuals who are lacking in confidence or conviction that should not be scrutinised? That is a very weak argument, and, as the hon Member for North Down pointed out, many could find that the positions that they are trying to hold today are ones which they will want to change in a short period of time.

Mr P Robinson:

The Member for West Tyrone is speaking against the agreement that he heralds as the best thing that we have had since tatie bread. The agreement, as Mr Ervine pointed out earlier on, clearly requires scrutiny of every function of the Government, so he is not only attempting, rather lamely, to prop up the First and Deputy First Ministers, but, in doing so, he is railing against the agreement that he supports.

Rev William McCrea:

I agree with my hon Friend. There is embarrassment - you have only to look at some of the faces to see it - because they have not a leg to stand on. They genuinely do not believe in what they are saying.

Dr McDonnell:

On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. Is it in order for Mr McCrea to make these points without naming names? Name the names.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I think the Member in speaking is giving evidence of that already.

Rev William McCrea:

I do understand the hon Member's lack of experience in parliamentary procedure.

Every Member from the Ulster Unionist Party who has spoken, bar Mr Weir, and every Member from the SDLP who has spoken, has spoken with embarrassment.

Mr S Wilson:

I know that the Member was in full flight there. Does he accept that there are Members, and maybe Dr McDonnell is one such on the SDLP side of the House, who are incapable of embarrassment? Maybe that is why he feels that Mr McCrea was wrongly accusing him.

Rev William McCrea:

I will not attribute that to the hon Member at all. The SDLP Members and certainly the Ulster Unionist Members have not spoken with conviction. They have spoken like sheep, totally devoid of conviction. They have not presented their case well, and it appears that they really do not believe what they say. They have to save the faces of the First and the Deputy First Ministers who are unwilling to grace the Assembly with their presence. They feel strongly about this issue, yet they cannot come and present their views to the Assembly.

The Member from East Antrim, who has now disappeared, said "Tony Blair is not subject to scrutiny, so why should Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon be?"

What Department does Tony Blair run? Is he the Minister of Education? He is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and we are not, therefore, comparing like with like. Do not bring false arguments into this. Let us face the issues as they really are.

Mr Farren talked about a gap in the position - there is gaping hole here. He knows what the legislation and the Standing Orders are devoid of. He is suggesting that we ask the First and the Deputy First Ministers to go away and then come back and tell us how they would like to be scrutinised, but he does not want us to put too much pressure on them or ask difficult questions that they might not have an answer to. I have never heard of anything so ludicrous in a debating chamber.

Then the Members on the Front Benches are attempting to justify - [Interruption]

Mr Farren:

Will the Member give way?

Rev William McCrea:

The hon Member has already spoken, and he made a mess of that. He should not attempt to justify that which is unjustifiable.

It does not matter whether people said "Yes" or "No" in the referendum, and those who are attempting to bring the referendum into this are trying to create a division that is not here. We are talking about open and accountable Government.

The real gem from the debate has come from IRA/Sinn Féin. It does not agree with the amendment by my hon Friend, Mr Robinson. It wants to do away with the scrutiny committee that would help with women's rights and help other individuals who believe that they need assistance. I am amazed at the rationale behind such thinking. Nevertheless, I suppose muddled minds can only come up with muddled suggestions.

This is something that should not be divisive. Here is an opportunity for the open and accountable government that the people of Ulster expect and have a right to. This amendment would certainly help to bring that about.

Mr S Wilson:

Many of the points have already been covered well. I asked to speak because, having listened to the last two speeches from those who oppose the amendment, I was bewildered by one and amused by the other.

I was bewildered by the speech from a member of the SDLP. The more he spoke, the more he seemed to be taking a position which was totally contrary to the position which was adopted in the committee by his party, by the co-Chairman from his party and, indeed, by other Members. This afternoon is the first time that I have actually heard anyone oppose the idea of scrutiny of the First and the Deputy First Ministers'Offices.

We heard people making excuses this morning, along the lines that we should have scrutiny but not now, or not until we have had time to think about how it should be done, or not until after we have asked the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) how they would like their work to be scrutinised. Those are the arguments which we heard this morning. This afternoon, having had a little chat over a good lunch with the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), they are now questioning the whole concept of scrutiny of the Offices of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

2.30 pm

Those of us who wish to see such proper scrutiny are now being told that to do so would gum up the whole process of government. That is what the Member said, and that is totally contrary to what we heard this morning. No one spoke then of gumming the process up; it was simply a case of trying to find the best mechanism. We are told now that the effect of setting up structures to scrutinise the work of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would be to gum up the process of government, but it has not been explained why this should be so.

I find it strange that anyone should suggest that there is no merit in having proper structures for scrutiny, given the amount of power which the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) have assumed.

I see that Mr Beggs has left the Chamber again. That is a pity, as I wanted to address some of the points he made. I appreciate Mr Beggs's position within the Ulster Unionist Party. He is regarded as a bit of rebel; he has given Mr Trimble some headaches. Indeed, I understand that Mr Trimble has had to sit down and produce written assurances for him. Nonetheless, he is going a bit far in ingratiating himself with his party Leader by defending him over an issue on which his position is indefensible. One of the points made by Mr Trimble, in defence of his decision to sign the agreement, was that

"This agreement will allow us to have accountable government in Northern Ireland."

Yet, we see members of his party defending the idea that the First Minister should control a Department which would not be subject to scrutiny by the Assembly. I would have thought that if you were trying to wheedle your way back into the party fold, as Mr Beggs is trying to do, you could have chosen a better issue upon which to make a stand than this.

Rev William McCrea has already addressed the point made by Mr Beggs that the Prime Minister is not subject to scrutiny, and he pointed out that the Prime Minister does not have a Department. Between the presentation of their first report and their second report, the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) doubled the extent of their remit.

Let us look at the areas that will not be subject to scrutiny - the economic policy unit and equality. At one stage, Sinn Féin was so exercised about the issue of equality that it was demanding a completely separate Department, including a Minister and a scrutiny committee. Now it has no Department, no scrutiny committee, yet it is going to vote against this amendment. We should ask ourselves what the real motives of the pro-agreement parties are.

We must look at the areas that are now not going to be subject to scrutiny. They include the Economic Policy Unit, equality, liaison with the North/South Ministerial Council, liaison with the British/Irish Council, liaison with the Civic Forum, liaison with the Secretary of State on reserved and excepted matters, European affairs and international matters, the Policy Innovation Unit, Information Services and community relations. There will be no scrutiny in any of these areas, and that is only half the list - I cannot remember the other ones.

All those areas of the Government are not going to be scrutinised properly, yet the First Minister stood on an electoral platform saying that he was all for accountable Government. Now he, his party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin are all saying that they do not want that part of the Government to be accountable to the House.

I find that very strange. This morning's excuses have been scraped away, and Back-Bench Members from both the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP are saying -

Rev William McCrea:

I thank my hon Friend for giving way. When matters arise within the remit of the First and Deputy First Ministers which affect constituents, and the constituents believe that the issues have been wrongly dealt with, how will these Members justify the lack of scrutiny to their constituents?

Mr S Wilson:

They will have no defence, and they have already admitted in the committee that it is important that they should have a scrutiny role. But now, between the meetings of the committee and today's Assembly meeting, something has changed. Who has nobbled them?

Mr McCartney:

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He has referred to the committee. Is it his memory as it is mine that members of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP were in favour at one stage of the Assembly's meeting twice a month, thus indicating the importance, or lack of it, that they thought the Assembly had to the activities of the Executive?

Mr S Wilson:

That is quite right, and their emphasis at that stage was that the work would be done through the scrutiny committees, but there will be no committee to scrutinise the work of the First and the Deputy First Ministers.

I have no doubt that this vote will be taken strictly on party-political lines. But, as was pointed out by Mr McCartney this morning, if Members were to vote on this amendment from the point of view of giving sound and accountable government rather than pleasing the party Whips and ingratiating themselves with the party Leader, I have no doubt that this amendment would be carried.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I sense that most of the arguments for or against this amendment have been made, and I am therefore only going to take the two Members whose names remain on the list.

Mr Attwood:

Before getting into the detail of the debate, there is a broader point which needs to be made. Members are discussing scrutiny mechanisms for the Chamber and the Government, but one of the issues which the Assembly will ultimately have to address is "the people's scrutiny mechanism". That will require a Freedom of Information Act to enable the people whom Members are elected to serve to have their own methods of scrutinising the work of the Assembly, the work of all the other institutions of Government in the North, and the work of the public service generally.

I find some DUP comments rather superficial. If Members thought more broadly for a minute they would realise that the pro-agreement parties, which created the Good Friday Agreement, and the pro-agreement community, which endorsed the agreement, endorsed, among other things, the building into the political society that we are creating of fundamental scrutiny mechanisms. I am referring to the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission.

It is somewhat superficial and obvious to criticise people who have a different view on how that scrutiny is carried out. Those same people struggled over many weeks and months to create an agreement which included scrutiny mechanisms for equality, policy, practice and human rights generally in the North.

That is the starting point for all the pro-agreement parties on the scrutiny of Government, human rights practices and equality issues. The anti-agreement parties were hostile to the agreement and those specific proposals, and it is somewhat obvious, cheap and superficial now to criticise us when we speak about scrutinising mechanisms.

Mr McCartney:

Does the Member not appreciate that the commissions to which he refers, will be scrutinising policy after it has been made, and that the purpose of a scrutiny committee would be to scrutinise those who are making the policy that those commissions would subsequently deal with?

Mr Attwood:

With all due respect to Mr McCartney, his intervention reveals that he does not understand that the Human Rights Commission has the power to review draft legislation and not just that which comes from the Chamber and the House of Commons. In that regard the role of the Human Rights Commission is above that of the Assembly and the Commons in terms of legislation which affects the quality of life in the North. Mr McCartney should read the powers of the Human Rights Commission and come back to me when he has done so.

To some degree, Members miss the point. While we are discussing how we will scrutinise Government, which is a very proper objective, the Civil Service, that other government in the North, is not subject to scrutiny in relation to fundamental decisions that will affect the quality of people's lives over the next four to five years.

The Northern Ireland Civil Service is currently conducting a so-called consultation exercise in relation to the next tranche of structural funds, and that so-called consultation is not subject to public or political scrutiny or to any meaningful public or political input. As I have said before, if we are not mindful, the victory that we won in the Good Friday Agreement will be reclaimed by the old men who will remodel it in the image of the old order that they knew and loved. They are doing that at present in many ways, not least in respect of future European structural funds in the North of Ireland.

I have three points about the debate. First, in an interjection on his Colleague Mr Wilson, Mr P Robinson correctly invoked the Good Friday Agreement when he correctly said that it requires the scrutiny of all functions of government. He somehow translated that into meaning a scrutiny committee in the terms of his amendment. There is no mention in the Good Friday Agreement of the word scrutiny meaning a scrutiny committee. It is mischievous and misleading to suggest, as Mr Robinson suggested to his Colleague Mr Wilson -

Mr P Robinson:

It was Mr McCrea.

Mr Attwood:

Whoever it was, the point remains the same. Scrutiny is for us to determine: it is not prescriptive in the agreement.

Mr Close:

Which of the powers that are described in, I think, paragraph 9 of the Good Friday Agreement which outlines the scrutiny powers of the committee, does he not wish to apply to the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers?

Mr Attwood:

No one denies the principle of scrutiny. We are debating the method. As those who oppose the amendment have said in substantial detail, in addition to the use of existing mechanisms, which were detailed earlier by Mr Durkan, the matter can be revised and reviewed to ensure that legitimate concerns can be legitimately expressed. It is incorrect to translate the agreement's use of the word scrutiny into scrutiny committee.

The second point is that a scrutiny committee, which would deal more substantially with the matter, should act as both sword and shield. It should fulfil both purposes. As a sword it should result in the exposure [Interruption]

2.45 pm

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. I draw to Members' attention that it is usually accepted that when a Member is named and his views expressed through the mouth of the Member who is speaking, some opportunity ought to be given for that Member to respond. I have already made it clear that I have taken all the speeches that I am prepared to take on this matter, and in any case, Mr Robinson is not entitled to speak again because he has spoken already. Therefore I draw to the Member's attention that in the balance of his time - and we are, at present, on a point of order, so no time is being used - he might wish to take that into consideration.

Mr Attwood:

I will honour that interpretation and give way to the Member.

Mr P Robinson:

I am very grateful to Mr Attwood for giving way. I simply want to put on record that he is completely wrong in his remarks. Paragraph 8 of strand one of the Belfast Agreement says

"There will be a Committee" -

Committee, specifically -

"for each of the main executive functions of the Northern Ireland Administration."

Is he arguing that equality is not a main function? Is he arguing that the Economic Policy Unit is not a main function? The agreement continues

"Committees will have a scrutiny . role."

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>