Mr Attwood:

No one is denying what the agreement says. But what [Interruption]. If you want to listen, listen; if you want to jeer, go somewhere else.

The full interpretation of that and its operation in practice is the subject of this debate. What concerns people, I suggest, is that there is a motivation in some of the comments that might have given rise to the conclusion that people wish to use the scrutiny committee more as a sword - or only as a sword and not a shield. It is an attempt to cause damage rather than expose the truth and ensure accountable Government.

There is a requirement that the principle of scrutiny and the operation of the scrutiny committee should not end up being abused, misused or being used in some way to frustrate the proper and necessary functions of Government [Interruption]. Excuse me if some people have doubts about some people's motivation when it comes to what they mean, what they intend and what they say. Having heard what the people opposed to the amendment have said, I think that there is, within that amendment, an adequate opportunity to ensure that people's concerns will be answered, and answered fully in due course.

Mr Morrow:

I want to make one or two comments. I am absolutely astounded at some of the arguments that have been put forward here today, in particular by those who are the greatest exponents of the Belfast Agreement.

I listened with interest to the comments of those who were most vociferous in their support of the agreement. When the Unionist side of the equation was going round the streets selling the agreement, one of the arguments that they kept putting forward was that, at long last, transparent Government was going to be part and parcel of Northern Ireland's future, but it is interesting to note that the two largest parties within this Assembly, who were the greatest advocates of it, want to put a shield around the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for reasons best known to themselves. In all their arguments they have not been convincing as to why they want to do this, but even more puzzling, I think, is the stance that Sinn Féin has taken. Michelle Gildernew read out a speech. Obviously someone had written it for her, and she did not read it before she came in, because she started off on one trend - [Interruption]

I am coming to it now. And then she contradicted herself.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. I have pointed out that I expect courtesy to be extended to all Members and that they should be given their title. It is only fair that this is also done in respect of Ms Gildernew.

Mr Morrow:

What I was saying was to her credit. I thought she could have done even better if she had written it herself, but I take your point.

Yesterday evening in my council -

Ms Gildernew:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Mr Morrow, thank you for your kind comments on my ability but I have to disagree with you. I was making very relevant points in my speech and did not contradict myself.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Again I would like to encourage Members to speak through the Chair; it helps to ensure the propriety of debate.

Mr Morrow:

Yesterday evening, when members of Dungannon Council were discussing how we wanted to call in and question the Minister responsible for Health and Social Services in relation to the pending rundown of acute services in the South Tyrone hospital, it was interesting to hear one of the Sinn Féin members saying "These Ministers come over here and nobody - but nobody - can scrutinise anything they do. They just act as dictators." What is happening in this Assembly today? We are now in the same situation where we are placing the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the very same, unique position - and it is an enviable position. They will be able to carry out functions and nobody - but nobody - in this Assembly will have any right whatsoever to cross-examine them on any matter that they -

Mr Birnie:

Will the hon Member give way?

Mr Morrow:

Yes.

Mr Birnie:

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he not agree that the fundamental difference between Northern Ireland Office Ministers and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are answerable to the ultimate authority - the electorate in Northern Ireland - and, therefore, that his comparison is not relevant?

Mr Morrow:

I do not see the relevance of that, but sometime, in privacy perhaps, the Member will point it out to me.

But surely the Member has heard enough today to help him change his mind, to ensure that people like myself, and others who are a bit sceptical, will have no room for scepticism in the future. I assume, therefore, that he will be voting with us in a few minutes time.

I find the attitude of Members from the SDLP who claim to be all for transparency in every other avenue but not in this one very hypocritical.

Mr Haughey:

Does the Member not agree that I, along with other main spokesmen for the SDLP and, indeed, Mr Cobain, Mr McFarland and other main spokesmen for the UUP, have not taken the view that there should be no scrutiny of the functions of the First and Deputy First Ministers? What we have said is that we do not accept that the amendment proposed here is the best way of going about this. It is a complicated matter; the agreement provides for such scrutiny, and the legislation does not. We need legal advice; we need to consult; we need to engage in dialogue about the matter and come up with a comprehensive proposal. Does the Member not agree that that is what I and other main spokespersons for our two parties have said?

Mr Morrow:

In addressing that, perhaps I should give Mr Haughey an opportunity to repudiate the Members from his own group who said there should be no scrutiny, and if he wants me to give way so that he can do that, I will be quite prepared to do so. [Interruption]

Mr Haughey:

Thank you very much, Jim. The hon Member (Mr Wells) has encouraged me to get to my feet. I did not understand my Colleague the Member for West Tyrone (Mr Byrne) to say that there should be no scrutiny of the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers. What I understood him to say was that it was the intention, in his view, of the proposers of this amendment, to devise ways and means by which the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers might be shackled, that we had spotted it, that we were on to it and that we would not tolerate it.

Mr Morrow:

Mr Haughey is being extravagant with words, but he is very weak on facts. When Mr Byrne was speaking what he was saying was evident to those of us on these Benches. Indeed, when Mr McCrea, I think it was, pointed to the Member and addressed him directly, Mr Byrne was observed dropping his head, and we detected it. [Interruption]

Mr Byrne:

It is wonderful to rise to the bait after three or four invitations. I am not against scrutiny of the First and Deputy First Ministers. I said that I do not think that a specific scrutiny committee for the Centre would be the most effective way to control them. It will be up to the Executive Committee to make sure that the First and Deputy First Ministers do not over-exercise their functions.

Mr Morrow:

I am not sure whether that is what Mr Haughey said or alluded to, but I am delighted to hear that Mr Byrne has changed his mind on the issue. I look forward to having him vote with my party in a few minutes' time when he will have the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is.

Mr McCartney:

Does the Member agree that the principle that was expressed by Mr Byrne is equivalent to the allegation that the RUC is responsible for its own internal investigation of the behaviour of its members? He is saying that the Executive should be responsible for the behaviour of the chief constable of the Executive and his deputy. Does he further agree that the amendment is phrased in almost exactly the same terms as the powers that are to be given to the other scrutiny committees? One can only wonder why refinement is required.

Mr Morrow:

I thank Mr McCartney for putting those two points in such an excellent manner. Only someone with his experience and expertise could have put them so well. His point about the RUC is well made. The SDLP and Sinn Féin have asked on too many occasions "How can the police police themselves?" There is some logic in that.

Mr Haughey:

Can we take it that Mr Morrow is now arguing for independent scrutiny of the police force?

Mr Morrow:

In a few minutes, all Members will have an opportunity to vote with us for proper scrutiny. I have listened to the arguments, and I look forward to Members changing their minds.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

We come now to the approval of the Standing Orders and amendments in the first group, which relates to committees.

Standing Order 42 (Committees of the Assembly: General) agreed to.

Standing Order 43 (Statutory Committees) agreed to.

Standing Order 44 (Establishment of Statutory Committees)

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Is amendment No 60 moved or not moved?

Mr P Robinson:

For the convenience of the Assembly, I will consider amendments 60, 59, 55 and 56 to be subject to one vote. If amendment 60 falls, I will not move the other three because they are consequential amendments.

Amendment (No 60) proposed: In the Title, after "STATUTORY", insert "AND SPECIAL SCRUTINY". - [Mr P Robinson]

3.00 pm

Question put That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 34; Noes 57.

AYES

Nationalist

Nil.

Unionist

Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, David Ervine, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, Rev William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mrs Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Other

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

NOES

Nationalist

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

Unionist

Dr Ian Adamson, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Mrs Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Sir Reg Empey, Sam Foster, Sir John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, Rt Hon David Trimble.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There voted 91 Members. Of Nationalists, there voted 35 all against. Of the Unionists, there voted 29 for and 22 against, a total of 51. The total vote for is 37·4% and the amendment therefore falls.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Is amendment No 57 moved or not moved?

Mr P Robinson:

Moved.

Amendment (No 57) made: In paragraph (2) leave out "given" and insert "offered". - [Mr P Robinson]

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Is amendment No 58 moved or not moved?

Mr P Robinson:

Moved.

Amendment (No 58) made: In paragraph (2), after "members", insert "other than himself/herself". - [Mr P Robinson]

Amendment (No 54) proposed: In paragraph (5) add

"or the Minister is responsible for a Department in which a junior Minister is placed who is a member of his/her party." - [Mr P Robinson]

Question That the amendment be made put and negatived.

Standing Order 44, as amended, agreed to.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Before moving on to the rest of the amendments, may I make one brief announcement at this point for the information of Members. In a letter dated 8 March, headed 'Additional Standing Orders', the Secretary of State says

"As you know, it is my responsibility, under paragraph 10 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, to determine the Standing Orders of the Assembly during its shadow period.

It is therefore hereby determined that Additional Standing Orders on the appointment of Ministers (designate), the establishment of shadow statutory committees, exclusion or removal from office and determination of Junior Ministers (designate), attached as Annex A, should become Standing Orders 22, 23, 24 and 25 respectively."

Copies of this letter and the Annex are available in the Printed Paper Office for Members.

3.15 pm

Mr P Robinson:

Could you indicate, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, if, therefore, you are deeming those Standing Orders to be in effect from this moment?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

That is correct. I have received them, they are titled as having been hereby determined, and at the first point when I have had the fair copy of the letter from the Secretary of State I have brought them to the attention of the Assembly.

Mr Dodds:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Members will recall that last week when this matter was drawn to the attention of the House, I rose to ask one of the joint Chairmen whether it would be possible for the Committee on Standing Orders to look at these draft Additional Standing Orders and the undertaking was given that that would be done. I am somewhat surprised that the Committee has not looked at those Additional Standing Orders and I would like to place on record that that should have been done. There was opportunity to do so, especially in light of the undertaking that was given.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I recall your making that point at the time. I do not know whether either of the joint Chairmen wishes to address the point at this stage.

Mr Haughey:

The Additional Initial Standing Orders became available to us quite late, and it was not possible to call a meeting, especially in view of the work that needed to be done for this sitting. We would need to call a meeting of the Standing Orders Committee subsequent to the work of this plenary session on these Standing Orders, and the matter could be addressed then.

Mr P Robinson:

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, could you give us your interpretation of the Additional Standing Order 22(1), which says

"Where a determination has been made and approved in accordance with Standing Order 21" -

I assume that has been done in the Chamber -

"the Presiding Officer shall, at the next meeting of the Assembly after 9 March, supervise the allocation and taking up of the Ministerial offices (designate) in accordance with the procedure set out in this Standing Order."

Is it your interpretation, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, that that will be your first duty at the next meeting of the Assembly?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

That is my understanding. If I may, I will read a further passage from the Secretary of State's letter as I did not go through all of it. She says

"Consequently paragraph 1 of Standing Order 22 now refers to the procedure being run at the next Assembly meeting after 10 March. Furthermore, in order to avoid indefinite delay, I have told the parties that I shall call a meeting of the Assembly for the purposes of running D'Hondt in the week beginning 29 March. I shall confirm the exact date and time of that meeting with you in the normal manner."

The reason the Secretary of State refers to it in this fashion is that we have been given leave to meet until 10 o'clock this evening in respect of Standing Orders. It has been indicated to me, and I am somewhat hesitant to convey this to the Assembly, that if it were necessary, it might be possible for the Assembly to meet even longer.

The reason the Secretary of State has put it in that fashion is to make clear that, even if it were the case that we needed to transgress into tomorrow for the continuation of this process, it would be the next Assembly meeting after 10 March at which d'Hondt would be run. That is to say, we do not currently have leave from the Secretary of State to have a meeting of the Assembly beyond 10 March. And when she does give leave she is making it clear that it will only be given for a meeting of the Assembly in the week beginning 29 March and that she will inform us as to when such a meeting is possible. I trust that is clear.

Mr P Robinson:

Does that mean that the Secretary of State is giving the Assembly a compulsory two-week holiday?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am sorry I was not able to hear the Member because the Clerk was advising me.

Mr P Robinson:

Under these Standing Orders we could sit tomorrow, but after that the Assembly cannot sit until the week commencing 29 March. That is the case if there is any consistency between the Secretary of State's letter and the Standing Orders.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

That is correct, and that is why I drew the information to Members' attention immediately it became available.

Mr McCartney:

Do you understand from the communications or intelligence that you have received from the Secretary of State that, after tomorrow, if we run into tomorrow, the next meeting of the Assembly will be on 29 March or on some date as yet not specified in the week beginning 29 March?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The passage in the letter from the Secretary of State says that she has told the parties that she shall call a meeting of the Assembly for the purposes of running d'Hondt in the week beginning 29 March. It could be on 29 March or, I assume, on another day that week.

We shall continue with the approval of Standing Orders and amendments. I understand that amendment No 84 has been withdrawn.

Mr Neeson:

We have withdrawn it on the understanding that no Member or political party will be excluded from any of the Statutory Committees.

Mr P Robinson:

What was the source of the assurances on which the intended mover of the amendment can rely to withdraw it? That should be on the record for his sake as well as ours.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am hesitant about permitting this. I might even have ruled the previous Member out of order. When an amendment is withdrawn, there is no right to speak to it. It is possible to speak to an amendment and not move it, but to withdraw it precludes the possibility of debate on it. I am afraid I cannot permit further discussion on this matter. Not all Members may have been aware of the position. I draw it to their attention now and hope that it does not cause undue difficulty. I repeat that when a Member chooses to withdraw an amendment without speaking to it or does not move it, there is no debate on it.

When a Member speaks to an amendment, he may or may not move it. Members will be aware that before we move to the vote, I ask the Member whether he wishes to move his amendment. The reason for that is that some Members may wish to table probing amendments to draw matters out. Members will have noticed that there has been no debate on Standing Orders. I have simply taken the vote on them. There has been debate only where Standing Orders have amendments. Amendments are often tabled to trigger a debate, but they may not be moved. When they are withdrawn, there is no debate.

Mr C Wilson:

It was a qualified withdrawal. The Member said that he was withdrawing it on the basis that he had undertakings and understandings that all parties would be represented on all the committees. There is an onus on you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, to place on the record the fact that those were not given to the Assembly.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There is no such thing as a qualified withdrawal. The amendment was either withdrawn or it was not. As it was withdrawn, I granted some flexibility in permitting the Member to comment upon the matter. To go further would be quite improper.

There is still a substantial number of Standing Orders and amendments in this group. However, many of them are technical, some are largely typographical, and some 10 amendments effectively form one large group. The series of amendments 3(a) to (e) form a single amendment, although they are divided for the sake of clarity. There are also the relevant amendments that are the same, but form individual amendments.

I trust that we will be able to get through that matter as one debate. As there is one proposer for a considerable number of the amendments, he may need to propose them and then speak again. The first amendment in the group is amendment No 62, standing in the name of Mr P Robinson. I call on him to deal with it and with any others that he finds it possible to address.

Mr P Robinson:

I will get into fifth gear very quickly.

Amendment No 62 simply seeks to replace an upper case A with a lower case a - I do not think we will fall out about that one. It will be a small allocation rather than a big one.

Amendment No 53 to Standing Order 46(2) seeks to reflect what is more likely to be the working practice of committees. If a committee that is responsible for taking the lead on a piece of legislation that also covers a topic falling more properly into the remit of another committee, rather than taking the views and establishing the interests of the other committee, it ought to be able to ask the other committee to investigate and take evidence on that element which falls into its remit. The other committee would then provide the lead committee with a draft report, and it would have the final say as to whether to adopt the draft report in its entirety. In terms of working practice it would allow the experts in a particular subject to deal directly with that subject rather than delegating it to another committee. The amendment simply takes into account good working practice.

Amendment No 52 to Standing Order 49 seeks to remove the ability of a committee to continue to sit while a vote was taking place in the Assembly. That is entirely necessary, particularly in circumstances where, for example, a Member from a small party had not arrived when a vote was being taken, or came in or had left a meeting when a vote was being taken.

Without the amendment, two Divisions could take place at the same time; one in the committee and one in the Assembly. A vote in this Assembly should always have precedence over any business that is being carried out in the precincts of the House. A committee should automatically, without any alternatives being offered, be suspended to allow everyone to vote.

Amendment No 51 relates to Standing Order 50. It was the committee's intention to ensure that any sub-committee would have a balanced membership, that there would be proportionality. My amendment does not specify the nature of the proportionality or balance, but requires it. Without that, a committee could consist of members from one or two parties, and I do not think that anyone would regard that as fair, given the nature of the structures that are being set up.

Amendment No 82 to Standing Order 53 seeks to tidy up a very awkward heading. I am sure that no one particularly likes a heading such as "Conformity with Equality Requirements - Special Committee On". I note that the facing page shows the headings "Public Accounts Committee" and "Committee on Standards and Privileges". I see nothing wrong with "Special Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements".

Amendment No 81 seeks to bring consistency elsewhere. In referring to the European Convention on Human Rights, we have talked about "including rights under". That is to conform with other parts of the Standing Orders.

I come to amendment No 80. Rather than giving the Assembly a choice in dealing with reports, the amendment requires it to deal with all reports. I hope that that was the intention of the draftsman.

3.30 pm

With regard to the petition of concern, amendment No 79 simply points out that we had actually transferred that sub-section of the Standing Order to the voting section. It is incorporated elsewhere and is, therefore, being deleted at this point. Incidentally, in the renumbering paragraph (6) will become paragraph (5).

The Public Accounts Committee is one of the most important committees of the House or any other elected body. It is where all spending and the processes which give rise to spending are scrutinised. The intention on the part of the draftsmen, as I read it, was based on a misunderstanding of what a Public Accounts Committee does. A Public Accounts Committee does not simply take account of finance in the context of the Department of Finance and Personnel, it takes account of finance in every Department. All Ministers dread being called before the Public Accounts Committee to give account of the expenditure in their Departments.

Rather than excluding only those who are in the same party as the Minister or a junior Minister of the Department of Finance and Personnel from the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson posts, I am suggesting that those in the same party as any Minister or junior Minister should be excluded. That would ensure that there was proper scrutiny and that party colleagues would not be in the position of questioning the Minister and taking the lead in determining issues.

Amendment No 77 deals with the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and the term in paragraph 1(a) should be "privilege" rather than "privileges".

There is a fairly innocuous change in the section on the Audit Committee. Under the Standing Orders as it stands, it does not outline how the committee is to be established, only that it shall. The purpose of Standing Orders is to advise us on how this will be done. Therefore it has been changed to say that the Assembly shall, by resolution, establish a committee to exercise the functions. That simply is a tidying-up amendment. I am not sure whether that is the end of that series of amendments. If so, I beg to move.

The First Minister (Designate):

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I will speak to amendment No 3. Although it refers to five different Standing Orders, No 3 was, as indicated earlier, submitted as one amendment. However, it refers to the same point in each of them. The principle is entirely the same, and it is preferable that the matter be taken as a single issue, as you indicated.

Following the good old practice of belt and braces, my Colleague Mr Davis has also tabled amendments to the same effect. I am pleased to record that I got my amendments in before his, but that was purely just a matter of minutes. Most of Mr Davis's amendments are to the same effect and consequently this does make a single issue.

There is, in my view, a serious anomaly in the Standing Orders with regard to non-Statutory Committees. In fact, there is a serious anomaly which is contrary to the agreement and contrary to the Act, and that is something that we have to look very carefully at.

With regard to Statutory Committees, there are provisions in Standing Order 45, which we have approved, which apply the principle of proportionality to committees and provide for the distribution of posts, offices, Chairmanships, vice-Chairmanships by the d'Hondt formula and which also apply proportionality to the membership of the committees. That, of course, is entirely in accordance with the agreement.

Standing Order 47 applies the d'Hondt formula to Chairs and deputy Chairs of non-Statutory Committees to ensure that proportionality applies with regard to offices. It does have a general provision in paragraph (4) that Standing Committees, unless otherwise specified, shall be constituted in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 45.

So, the effect of Standing Order 47(4) by itself is to apply the principle of proportionality to the non-Statutory Standing Committees. Unfortunately, when we turn to Standing Orders Nos 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55, dealing, respectively, with the Committee on Procedures, the Business Committee, the Special Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements, the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee on Standards and Privilege - and I adopt the language suggested by Mr P Robinson here, as it is correct - we find that there are sub-clauses in them which do not apply the terms of Standing Order No 45, and, consequently, do not apply the principle of proportionality.

The provisions contained in the clauses which my amendment would remove do not apply the principle of proportionality and produce a result which is not proportional. The amendment I have tabled would remove those clauses and bring into effect Standing Order 47(4), which imports Standing Order 45, which would, in turn, import the principle of proportionality.

It all comes down to the very simple question of whether or not we abide by the principle of proportionality in the Standing Committees. The Standing Orders, as drafted, depart from this principle, but my amendment would ensure that this principle was applied with regard to the other Standing Committees. I submit that that is precisely what we should be doing, according to the terms of the agreement and of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Paragraph 5 of the section of the agreement which deals with strand-one institutions states

"There will be safeguards to ensure that all sections of the community can participate . including:

(a) allocations of Committee Chairs, Ministers and Committee membership in proportion to party strengths".

All those who were involved directly in the negotiation of the agreement will know that the principle of proportionality was absolutely central to our decisions on strand-one institutions. Proportionality was to apply in the operation of the Assembly and to the allocation of Offices within it. The very first safeguard contained in the agreement is the application of proportionality to the appointment of committee Chairs, Ministers and committee members.

The provisions, as they currently stand, would apply proportionality to the appointment of committee Chairs but not to committee membership. In my view, that departs from the agreement, and it departs from the relevant provision in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, paragraph 4(1) of schedule 6 of which states

"The standing orders shall include provision for ensuring that, in appointing members to committees, regard is had to the balance of parties in the Assembly."

The use of the phrase "balance of parties" clearly implies the application of the principle of proportionality.

It is a very simple, very clear point. I do not need to elucidate it further. Do we stand by the principle of proportionality? I believe that we ought to. I believe that, as a matter of law, we have to, but I also believe that we ought to, because that is the fundamental principle on which the provisions of the agreement relating to this body are based.

This Standing Order departs from that principle, and, consequently, I urge the House to accept this amendment, so that the principle of proportionality will apply to those five Standing Committees in exactly the same way in which it will apply to the Statutory Committees. No distinction should be made between these committees, and to make such a distinction would be to run counter to the principle upon which the Assembly was established. This is simply a matter of adhering to the terms of the agreement.

Mr Davis:

I wish to move the amendments which are down in my name.

Mr McGrady rose

Mr P Robinson:

On a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt just as the Member was about to get into top gear.

There are some errors in the amendment sheet which Members need to take account of. Amendment 78, as I submitted it, was to Standing Order 54(3), line 2, and it was to leave out all the words after "party as" and to insert "any Minister or junior Minister." That should make more sense to Members than the original.

In amendment 65, relating to Standing Order 66, the reference is to "to" in the fourth line, not the "to" in the second or third line. It should say Standing Order 66(6), line 4, after "to" insert -

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Which amendment are we at?

Mr P Robinson:

That one is 65.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

This is amendment 65, on page 19 - the last page of the Marshalled List. Could you give us that one again please, Mr Robinson?

Mr P Robinson:

It is Standing Order 66(6), line 4, after "to". There is also a "to" on the second and third lines so it is to ensure that everyone is amending the right one.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am grateful to you for bringing that to Members' attention. I shall try to draw it to Members' attention when it is time to vote on those amendments.

Mr McGrady:

Mr Initial Presiding Officer - for the second time - I commend to the Assembly amendment 86, standing in my name, which is a very modest intrusion into this debate on my part. It is a probing amendment seeking clarification and interpretation, which I hope will inform the Assembly of the mind and will of the Standing Orders Committee through its co-Chairmen. It refers to draft Standing Order 52(1), which refers to

"a Standing Committee of the Assembly to be known as the Business Committee which shall arrange the business of the Assembly".

This Committee will obviously be the successor of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer, known as CAPO. CAPO is a purely consultative body, which advises the Initial Presiding Officer. This Standing Order assumes, subject to explanation and interpretation, an entirely different meaning when it says

"the Business Committee . shall arrange the business of the Assembly".

Normally, apart from Private Members' business, the business of the Assembly is arranged by the Government - in this case, I hope, the four major participating parties in the Executive Committee.

In proposing this probing amendment I am conscious of Standing Order 12(4), which lays down that the Executive Committee

"shall have the right of placing its business in any order that it pleases prior to the issue of the Order Paper".

I hope to make it more evident by changing the word "arrange" to "make arrangements for". This means taking on board that which is required and recommended from other sources such as the Executive, public business or private business, so that the appropriate logistical arrangements can be made for debate. I would like clarification from the co-Chairmen of the Standing Orders Committee that that is what was intended, that the Committee would arrange the business presented to it, rather than dictate what the public, personal, private or other business of the Assembly would be.

I think that there is a most important distinction here and if the Initial Presiding Officer could provide either of the joint Chairmen with the opportunity to express the mind of the Standing Orders Committee on this matter, Members could decide if this matter should be voted upon.

3.45 pm

Mr Ervine:

I rise somewhat reluctantly to discuss this issue - I did not expect that I would have to do so. There was a quite serious and heated debate in the Standing Orders Committee around the issue of membership of committees. First, it was about the membership of Statutory Committees. It seemed that the larger parties had difficulty with going beyond the figure of 11, including a Chairman and a Deputy Chairman, because of the stress, strain, and difficulty it would cause to their large number of members to facilitate a series of committees, potentially three or four committees.

We can argue about the week's work. Members pointed out earlier that we have three days other than the two sitting days, and there seems to be plenty of opportunity for Members to be gainfully employed on a large number of committees. However, it was deemed by the larger parties that that should not happen, even though the smaller parties argued that they could facilitate more than one committee, which is their allocation - one each for a party the size of the Progressive Unionist Party - across the ten Committees.

In some respects that is worrying because the make-up of the 11 committees will include a tiny minority, and I emphasise "tiny minority", of those who are not members of the Government. Indeed, different parties may be represented on a committee which scrutinises a Minister, but their representatives will also be part of the collective Government of which that Minister is a part.

We have consistently pointed out our fear of the absence of a reasonable Opposition. Others, including members of the larger parties on the Standing Orders Committee, have done the same. It was consistently pointed out with regard to the Statutory Committees, but I am sure that some of the other smaller parties will concur with me in saying that we had to concede because we had no choice but to concede.

The theory of the larger parties seems to be that there should be lots of consultation, but that back at the ranch they will do what they want to do anyway. We found that that was the case among the larger parties in relation to statutory bodies. We gave up the ghost somewhat and found ourselves - and this is reflected adequately in the minutes - leaving the committee meeting of 26 February thinking that Statutory and non-Statutory Committees would have 11 members including the Chair and the Deputy Chair.

However, in the inimitable words of the BBC's Mark Simpson, "compromise broke out at Stormont". An SDLP member of the Standing Orders Committee, unsolicited I have to say, said "Well, I might have been a bit harsh last week and those committees - " and he went on to name the four committees that Members have in front of them as non-Statutory Committees, " - may well be looked at somewhat differently." We thought that that was great. I had intended to place an amendment on the make-up of the Statutory Committees before the Assembly. However, since there seemed to have been a reasonable degree of concession from all of the large parties, we did seem to have agreement. I quote from the minutes of the meeting that was held on 2 March 1999:

"It was agreed that there should be two types of Standing Committee as follows:

Committees that would fall into the category of Rule 45 on Statutory Committees and special Standing Committees that required a representative presence of every party in the Assembly."

I am somewhat disappointed to find out not only that amendments have been tabled but that some of the larger parties seem likely to vote in agreement with the amendment put forward by the First Minister (Designate).

Mr Farren:

I am a member of the Standing Orders Committee. The minutes of the meeting of the Standing Orders Committee are as the Member has stated. Does he agree that the numerical composition of the committees which are listed for Procedures, Standards, Privilege and so on is not specified? Therefore my point stands. I think that I used the Public Accounts Committee as an exemplar. All parties should be represented on these committees, but what is before us may not effect that in quite the same way.

Mr Ervine:

The Member makes a fair point. I will be loath to give way in future for such an intervention. I make no criticism of his having, on that day, put forward, without solicitation, what I thought was some form of compromise towards the smaller parties. My difficulty is with the Standing Orders. I accept that there was no determination of the numbers or the specific size, although it was accepted that it would be larger than the non-Statutory Committee and would, as far as possible, have a broad representation.

Where did the figures come from? I do not criticise those who imported the figures. My criticism is of the larger parties that allowed the amendment to be tabled but advocated a different formula. However, they did not propose a formula to show the proportionality they were prepared to accept irrespective of that which the First Minister wants. The First Minister has addressed a specific issue relating to the Act and the agreement, and has given his reasons for tabling the amendment. I wish that it were the only issue that I think exists, but I am somewhat concerned over the carve-up of the Speaker.

I am concerned by the fact that there will be 11 members on a committee and the minimum number possible of those who could conceivably provide opposition. That begins to worry me in the context of collective governance - if we ever get to that. I am somewhat dismayed by the fact that the amendment essentially abandons an agreement while there is no counter amendment from parties who created a situation that could have led to proportionality which was different from that in the Statutory Committee.

I appeal to Members with a fair point. It is that those who vote against this and support the amendment will deny the small parties the representation that they deserve.

I shall extrapolate from a point that the First Minister made when he talked about proportionality. If I am not mistaken, the Act and the agreement do not preclude every Member of the Assembly from being on a committee. When he talks about his level of proportionality, he does not consider the fact that other committees have functioned very well. Examples are the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer, the Standing Orders Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee on the Port of Belfast. They have not been that unwieldy, and they offer a genuine opportunity for greater participation by those who are in opposition. In the light of our debate about the lack of scrutiny of the central Department, this proposal will not go down that well. It represents suppression of the smaller parties.

It is a degree of closing down the opportunity, or, dare I use that well-worn word in Northern Ireland, a "perception". But the UUP and the SDLP did carve up the position of Speaker, and it will be perceived - and is by me - that the main reason given for putting down the amendment is not the real reason behind it.

Mr Dodds:

In relation to the amendments in Mr Trimble's name, I want to draw the Assembly's attention to the fact that in the Standing Orders laid before the House, there are matters that were never agreed by the Standing Orders Committee.

At the Standing Orders Committee meeting of 2 March, we discussed which of the non-Statutory Committees would have a representative from every Assembly party. It is stated explicitly and was agreed explicitly that these committees would be Procedures, Standards and Privileges, Public Accounts and Equality. The rules are to be reworked to reflect this.

In this document - which members of the Standing Orders Committee did not get in final form before any other Member - we discovered that draft Standing Order 52 also includes the Business Committee as one of those committees. That is clearly a mistake; that was not what the Committee intended or agreed.

Mr Ervine pointed out that there was, however, an agreement in relation to the other four committees, and he is quite right about that. It was discussed and agreed that because of the particular nature of those committees, they should have a representative presence from each party. But that did not include the Business Committee, and I am amazed to find it included in this draft. I do not know who inserted it, but it should not be there; it was not agreed by the Standing Orders Committee.

It is quite in order, of course, for a Member to have an amendment to that effect put down, but it should not have been included in the draft. Therefore the amendment that is in Mr Trimble's name in relation to the Business Committee is a valid one. However, the nature of the other four committees was discussed at some length by the Standing Orders Committee, and it was felt that there should be a representative presence of every party, and I think that that is quite reasonable in relation to those specific committees.

I listened with some considerable degree of interest to what Mr Trimble said on the basic principle of proportionality. He spent a long time labouring the fact that proportionality was central to the agreement and that it would be quite wrong to do anything contrary to the principle of proportionality. He laboured this point time and time again in his remarks in relation to committees of this Assembly. Yet it is interesting that on the main committee of this whole process - the Executive Committee - we do not have proportionality. When Mr Trimble agreed the make-up of the Executive Committee, he agreed to a committee with a make-up which is totally out of proportion to party strengths and to the party votes in the Assembly.

The First Minister (Designate):

I am sorry to have to say that the Member's point is entirely wrong and completely misconceived. Proportionality does apply to the Executive Committee, because the d'Hondt formula applies to it. If the Member is saying that it is strange that a proportional principle would produce an Executive that might be fifty-fifty, whereas in terms of this Chamber there are 58 Unionists and 42 Nationalists, he should ask his party Leader why he threw away one seat, why he did not stand with his Colleagues in the election as a united Unionist.

Had he come into this Chamber as a united Unionist, as a block of 28, he would have been entitled to three seats on the Executive, not two, so why did his party and Mr McCartney's party decide to disaggregate themselves and throw away a seat?

Mr Dodds:

I am very glad that I have got so much under the skin of the First Minister (Designate). He is so worked up about this that he is now in a sedentary position - obviously the point I made has struck home. We do not have a fifty-fifty split between Unionists and Nationalists in the Assembly, so there should not be a fifty-fifty split on the Executive. We do not have a fifty-fifty split between Unionists and Nationalists in the electorate. [Interruption]

4.00 pm

This is the argument we hear from the First Minister (Designate) all the time. When something he has agreed to goes wrong, he blames everyone else. He says "It is your fault that prisoners are getting out; it is your fault that the RUC are under attack; it is your fault that there is a fifty-fifty carve-up in the Executive." The reality is that Mr Trimble agreed to this- he is responsible. He is becoming very agitated, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, and I urge him for the sake of his health to calm down - [Interruption]

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. Some Members have been complaining about the tedium of dealing with Standing Orders. Perhaps we can return to the tedium.

Mr Dodds:

This proportionality principle that Mr Trimble waxed so loudly and lyrically about just a short time ago does not apply to the Executive. If he had followed our advice -[Interruption]

He is off again. He is really getting terribly excited about this. It has struck home. He is not behaving himself terribly well. The reality is that if he had followed our advice and opted for seven Ministries, as was his initial position and that of members of his party, we would have a proportionate make-up in the Executive. We would have an Executive which reflected the balance of the parties in this House, and a balance of political identity. However, Mr Trimble threw that away, having argued -[Interruption]

They are all getting terribly excited about this and trying to put the blame on everyone else when it was they who made this agreement. They were advised against it by Mr Ken Maginnis and other members of the party, including Mr Nicholson, but they ignored that advice and opted for a Committee which is not proportionate, which is half and half, and on which Unionists do not even have a majority of seats.

Then the First Minister (Designate) stands up and talks about proportionality for these committees, which are far less important than the main Executive Committee which will have responsibility for governing Northern Ireland. He does not understand what proportionality is. He has applied a principle which means that Nationalists, although they cannot command a majority in this House, will have half of the seats on the Executive.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. I ask Members to do other Members the courtesy of listening to what they say.

Mr P Robinson:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. There is a parliamentary precedent that where the disruption and loutish behaviour is coming from one particular quarter-[Interruption]

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. The Member is making a point of order, and other Members should listen.

Mr P Robinson:

As I was saying, where the disruption is coming from one particular quarter then the Speaker should direct the admonition to that quarter. The First Minister (Designate) is behaving in a most appalling fashion, which is not in keeping with his Office, and I think that you should exercise your authority to stop it.

The First Minister (Designate):

I appeal to those Members who were upbraiding the Member as he spoke - although it was my impression that he was managing very well - to bring some degree of decorum to the debate. I ask that the Member is permitted to continue with what he has to say without inappropriate interruption.

Mr S Wilson:

Does Mr Dodds agree that it is just as well that we have not yet agreed Standing Order 57 because, had that been the case, the First Minister (Designate) would have already breached paragraphs 57(1)(a), 57(1)(b), 57(1)(c) and would have been reprimanded by the Speaker?

Mr Dodds:

I could have understood the First Minister (Designate)'s getting excited, had I not been prepared to give way to him. I allowed him to intervene but, not content with that, he tries to interrupt and behaves in a loutish way in his place.

We are happy to support the Business Committee amendment, but we intend to stick by our agreement on the others. Indeed, all the parties that were represented on the Standing Orders Committee made that agreement. I wish that Mr Trimble had been so assiduous in applying the principle of proportionately and democracy to the Executive Committee. That would have ensured that Nationalists, who do not command a 50% vote in the House or among the electorate, would not get 50% of the seats. There would be true proportionality on the Executive Committee. Unfortunately he failed in that, as he has failed on so many issues in relation to this process. No doubt he will fail again.

Mr Haughey:

I want to refer to amendment No 78 in the name of Mr P Robinson. On behalf of my party, I want to make it clear that we are entirely in sympathy with the spirit of the amendment. It is the practice in most legislatures for the Public Accounts Committee to be chaired by a member of a party that is not involved in the Administration. We agree with that. We also agree with the proposition that the Chair of the Standing Orders Committee be held by a member of a party other than the party of the Minister for Finance or that of any junior Minister in his Department.

However, we have a difficulty with that. I hope that we are in the process of constructing the most inclusive form of government that is practicable. I invite Mr Robinson to consider the consequence of excluding from the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee a member of any party who is in any way involved, either as a Minister or as a junior Minister, in the Administration. That could inhibit the freedom of movement of the First and Deputy First Ministers.

I do not pretend to know what is in their heads in relation to the appointment of junior Ministers, but I know that it is technically possible for them to consider the appointment of members of parties other than their own, perhaps members of smaller parties in the House. Mr Robinson may wish to reflect on that and decide whether he wishes to proceed with the amendment. I assure him that the SDLP wholly supports the spirit of the amendment, but see that small difficulty in terms of the future possibilities of creating the most inclusive form of Administration.

Standing Order 47 refers to the composition of certain non-Statutory Standing Committees. My party will support the First Minister's amendment and other amendments which seek to delete paragraphs that determine the composition of those committees. I do not agree with the First Minister that such a process activates Standing Order 47(4) and necessarily means that those committees would simply consist of 11 members. Standing Order 47(4) states:

"Standing Committees unless otherwise specified in Standing Orders shall be constituted in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 45."

The Standing Orders Committee has much work to do subsequent to this sitting and will meet soon to consider a variety of matters arising from these debates. That should be one of them. There has been a breakdown of communications here, which I do not think is anyone's fault but simply the result of a misunderstanding.

My recollection is that the Standing Orders Committee decided that it would be desirable to have all-party representation on certain Standing Committees and that that might be best accomplished by adopting a composition similar, if not identical, to that of the Standing Orders Committee. As Members know, that committee consists of four each from the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP, three each from the DUP and Sinn Féin, and one each from the smaller parties. My recollection is that that was what we agreed. However, the Clerks of the committee seem to have referred to an earlier formula for committee composition which was the practice in the Assembly's earliest days. There has been a breakdown in communication.

The First Minister (Designate):

Mr Haughey has a point when he says that the application of 47(4) does not necessarily cover the size of a committee. It occurred to me on rereading the Standing Orders today that 47(4) could be interpreted as relating to the means of selection rather than to the overall size. In the light of Mr Haughey's argument, it occurs to me that it would be possible, by increasing the size and applying the principle of proportionality, to arrive at a result where all parties where represented. I would have no objection to the spirit of that with regard to the four committees that were identified by the Standing Orders Committee on 2 March. That might be something that could very well be taken back to the Standing Orders Committee.

Mr Haughey:

I am glad of the First Minister (Designate)'s intervention and that he is in a measure of agreement with me. In relation to Mr Dodds's intervention about the Business Committee, I do recollect that a distinction was made regarding that committee. However, it would be best in these circumstances to proceed to delete the clause referring to composition, consider it further in the Standing Orders Committee, consult further about it and return with a fresh proposal.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>